GNU bug report logs - #3438
emacs 23.0.9{,3,4} dired mode bug(?)

Previous Next

Package: emacs;

Reported by: ishikawa <chiaki.ishikawa <at> ubin.jp>

Date: Mon, 1 Jun 2009 07:45:04 UTC

Severity: normal

Done: Glenn Morris <rgm+emacsbugs <at> gnu.org>

Bug is archived. No further changes may be made.

Full log

Message #55 received at 3438 <at> emacsbugs.donarmstrong.com (full text, mbox):

From: Lennart Borgman <lennart.borgman <at> gmail.com>
To: Drew Adams <drew.adams <at> oracle.com>
Cc: Stefan Monnier <monnier <at> iro.umontreal.ca>, 3438 <at> debbugs.gnu.org,
        "T.V. Raman" <tv.raman.tv <at> gmail.com>,
        Chong Yidong <cyd <at> stupidchicken.com>,
        "Andrew W. Nosenko" <andrew.w.nosenko <at> gmail.com>, emacs-devel <at> gnu.org,
        ishikawa <chiaki.ishikawa <at> ubin.jp>, ams <at> gnu.org, stephen <at> xemacs.org,
        eliz <at> gnu.org
Subject: Re: please make line-move-visual nil
Date: Tue, 2 Jun 2009 01:12:57 +0200

On Tue, Jun 2, 2009 at 12:52 AM, Drew Adams <drew.adams <at> oracle.com> wrote:
>
> The distinction I made is between buffers that are mostly free-form text, where
> newlines are typically not intentionally positioned by the user or by Emacs, and
> the other buffers, where they are.

Is not that a difficult distinction here? (In a word processor it
would be different.) Exactly how do you do the distinction - as simple
as possible, because if it is useful it must be easy to understand?

One point I mentioned before is that code might look scrambled, but
maybe that point could be cured some way? (If it really have to be
cured ...)
This bug report was last modified 15 years and 346 days ago.

Previous Next

GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham, 1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd, 1994-97 Ian Jackson.