GNU bug report logs - #9917
24.0.90; Make `goto-line' consistent with the line number from the minibuffer

Previous Next

Full log

View this message in rfc822 format

From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
To: Juri Linkov <juri <at> linkov.net>
Cc: larsi <at> gnus.org, dmoncayo <at> gmail.com, 9917 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, monnier <at> iro.umontreal.ca, 5042 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: bug#9917: bug#5042: bug#9917: 24.0.90; Make `goto-line' consistent with the line number from the minibuffer
Date: Thu, 29 Oct 2020 16:31:58 +0200

> From: Juri Linkov <juri <at> linkov.net>
> Cc: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>,  5042 <at> debbugs.gnu.org,
>   9917 <at> debbugs.gnu.org,  monnier <at> iro.umontreal.ca,  dmoncayo <at> gmail.com
> Date: Thu, 29 Oct 2020 11:19:11 +0200
> 
> 2. Re-bind 'M-g g' to goto-line-relative as many asked to do
>    with the reasoning that 'M-g g' should use by default the
>    same numbering scheme as is displayed by display-line-numbers-mode;

Two comments:

 1) display-line-numbers-mode by default behaves the same as
    line-number-mode
 2) display-line-numbers-mode has the display-line-numbers-widen
    option which disregards narrowing, so if you want to follow
    display-line-numbers-mode, you will need to heed that option as
    well

> 3. Leave the existing 'M-g g' bound to goto-line, but allow changing
>    the numbering scheme using a prefix arg and a user option.

I like this the best.

>    Or another idea: maybe it should depend on whether
>    display-line-numbers-mode is enabled or not?

That sounds wrong to me: there's no real relation between these two,
and having the same command behave differently in two buffers doesn't
sound right to me.

Previous Next

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