GNU bug report logs - #64185
proposal for new function: copy-line

Previous Next

Full log

Message #47 received at 64185 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Juri Linkov <juri <at> linkov.net>
To: Drew Adams <drew.adams <at> oracle.com>
Cc: "64185 <at> debbugs.gnu.org" <64185 <at> debbugs.gnu.org>,
 Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>, "me <at> eshelyaron.com" <me <at> eshelyaron.com>,
 "zkanfer <at> gmail.com" <zkanfer <at> gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [External] : bug#64185: proposal for new function: copy-line
Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2023 21:52:03 +0300

>> > FWIW -
>> >
>> > Point is the cursor position.  So I'd suggest
>> > just "point" (or "cursor-position", if you
>> > like), and not "point-position".
>> >
>> > We do use `pos' in various names to mean a
>> > buffer position, but in those cases it
>> > doesn't stand for point (the cursor position).
>> > So I agree that `pos' shouldn't be used here.
>>
>> In the patch a new position is counted by lines,
>> so maybe a better name would be 'duplicate-line-final-line'.
>> But this double "line-line" doesn't look nice.
>
> Is it about absolute line number, relative line
> number, cursor position (point), some other buffer
> position,...?
>
> A guess, from what you just wrote, is that it's
> about the relative line number, i.e., relative
> to the number of the line of the cursor initially.
> (Just a guess; haven't followed this thread.)

It's a relative line number - an offset from the
original line number where the number is in line units.

Previous Next

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