Emacs 23 line-move-visual

ulm · Last edited by ulm on Fri Jul 10, 2009 7:37 am; edited 1 time in total

In GNU Emacs 23 the default behaviour of the previous-line and next line commands (bound to the C-p and C-n or up/down arrow keys) will be changed to move by visual screen lines instead of logical lines. It would be easy to change this back to the traditional behaviour by setting the line-move-visual variable to nil.

The upstream decision was controversial. See the following discussion threads:
http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.devel/101551/focus=101560
http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.devel/108186

Please answer to this poll only if you are an Emacs user.

Christian Faulhammer
Ulrich Müller

Made topic sticky. -- desultory
2009-08-13: Unstuck. --kallamej

durian · Guru Joined: 16 Jul 2003 Posts: 312 Location: Margretetorp

I would prefer the logical line, not the screen one,

-peter

V-Li · Developer Joined: 03 Jan 2006 Posts: 597

So do I.
_________________
Christian Faulhammer, Gentoo Lisp project, GNU Emacs wrangler
http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/lisp/ #gentoo-lisp on FreeNode

http://gentoo.faulhammer.org/

addeman · Posted: Fri Jul 10, 2009 8:44 am Post subject:

Moving by logical line has always annoyed me, I'm all for going with the upstream on this one.

addeman

BrummieJim · Guru Joined: 22 Jul 2005 Posts: 559

Go with upstream, make latex a nightmare, as the whole paragraph is one logical line.
_________________
Intel 2.2 Core 2 Duo, 4Gb Ram, 320GB Sata Drive and Nvidia card.

BrummieJim · Guru Joined: 22 Jul 2005 Posts: 559

Go with upstream, make latex a nightmare, as the whole paragraph is one logical line.
_________________
Intel 2.2 Core 2 Duo, 4Gb Ram, 320GB Sata Drive and Nvidia card.

ulm · Posted: Fri Jul 10, 2009 9:10 am Post subject:

durian · Guru Joined: 16 Jul 2003 Posts: 312 Location: Margretetorp

It seems LaTeX people prefer (ok, ok, small sample as yet, 6) the "screen line"... Whatever the end outcome is, it could be set in the mode-hooks as wel, logical for the programming modes, screen for the LaTeX mode.

-peter

yngwin · Posted: Fri Jul 10, 2009 9:59 am Post subject:

_________________
"Those who deny freedom to others deserve it not for themselves." - Abraham Lincoln
Free Culture | Defective by Design | EFF

V-Li · Developer Joined: 03 Jan 2006 Posts: 597

V-Li · Developer Joined: 03 Jan 2006 Posts: 597

John R. Graham · Posted: Fri Jul 10, 2009 11:56 am Post subject:

I voted "Yes, but Gentoo shouldn't change the upstream default." but, as discussed in some of the upstream posts, I'm probably going to bind M-p and M-n to the logical line movement commands as I do find both the logical and visual move commands being easily available a good thing.

- John
_________________
Yoda: "Intentionally left blank, this space is."

durian · Guru Joined: 16 Jul 2003 Posts: 312 Location: Margretetorp

jezaustin · Posted: Fri Jul 10, 2009 12:13 pm Post subject:

I subliminally noticed this when it changed. I think I prefer logical lines for most things but I agree with john_r_graham, I'll bind M-p and M-n. Emacs tends to need a lot of customising anyway, so no need to monkey with upstream's defaults, leave it to the users.

webway · n00b Joined: 16 May 2006 Posts: 11

I think that moving by logical lines is better behaviour, especially when editing program source. However it is easily customisable by those of us who like the old behaviour, so it is best to follow upstream.

Sodki · Posted: Fri Jul 10, 2009 2:29 pm Post subject:

I strongly believe that we should keep upstream's behaviour. All of us Emacs users have our .emacs and we know how to keep the old behaviour, if we want to.

keenblade · Veteran Joined: 03 Oct 2004 Posts: 1007

soth · Apprentice Joined: 12 Sep 2003 Posts: 206

I know emacs maintainers are very diligent but aren't there any distro-wide policies about these things or does everyone roll their own style? Some follows upstream, some don't?
_________________
- Never argue with an idiot. They just drag you down to your level and beat you with experience.

Join the adopt an unanswered post initiative today

katabami · n00b Joined: 11 Jul 2009 Posts: 40

The change seems to have already been for a year, so isn't it too late to interfere with upstream?

For key bindings, good replies are done.
But if it affects the command 'previous-line' behavior itself, then it breaks existing elisp programs. It's bad, but changing it again could be worse, I fear.

I haven't voted yet. Thanks a lot for maintaing Gentoo!

zsitvaij · n00b Joined: 11 Jan 2006 Posts: 54

I hadn't noticed the change until mentioned, but I find I prefer the logical line move.

That said, the default shouldn't be patched. I'd prefer a mention in the emacs guide.

weyhan · Apprentice Joined: 27 May 2003 Posts: 245

I favor the new change made by upstream developers.

If this behavior can be turn on or off with an option in emacs, there is even less reason why gentoo should fiddle with it. I'm pretty sure people who use emacs is not the everyday joe that finds it difficult to change a setting in emacs.

_________________
Han.

rafo · Posted: Sun Jul 12, 2009 8:44 am Post subject:

I think altering the long-standing meaning of C-N and C-P was a very unwise change by the Emacs developers. It destroys the coherence within the set of basic navigation commands. It makes actions such as C-U 7 7 C-N unreliable (window size matters).

I could not say it better than this: http://www.opensubscriber.com/message/emacs-devel@gnu.org/12554930.html

Then again, I suppose this is not a matter for Gentoo to override. Customizing the behaviour back to the original one is doable (worth describing in a Gentoo Emacs guide, if there were such a thing).

There is an inofficial poll on the issue, not Gentoo related: http://www.micropoll.com/akira/mpview/623323-182852

rafo · Posted: Sun Jul 12, 2009 8:55 am Post subject:

V-Li · Developer Joined: 03 Jan 2006 Posts: 597

V-Li · Developer Joined: 03 Jan 2006 Posts: 597