[OS X Emacs] Aquamacs Cursor movement and word wrapping: C-e, C-a, C-n, C-p
Tom Van Vleck
thvv at multicians.org
Thu Apr 22 22:29:05 EDT 2010
On Apr 22, 2010, at 9:56 PM, David Reitter wrote:
> On Apr 22, 2010, at 9:39 PM, Tom Van Vleck wrote:
>> Changing the meaning of C-e, C-a, C-n, C-p would make Aquamacs
>> unusable for me. It would break saved macros. It would mean that
>> these keystrokes meant different things depending on what machine I
>> was logged into. I would have to relearn editing skills I learned
>> over 30 years ago. I couldn't use Aquamacs if you changed this
>> fundamental meaning.
> Could you clarify please: do not change them from their Emacs 23
> In Emacs 23, all of these apply to the visual line (visual-line-mode
> = soft word wrapping on). That's what the commands do in Emacs 23.
> This is different from Emacs 22, where C-a moved to the beginning of
> the (long) buffer line, no matter what the wrapping was. Native
> word wrapping didn't exist (longlines-mode excluded). When I
> introduced word wrapping in Emacs 22 in one of the Aquamacs 1.x
> versions, I took care to give C-a, C-e, C-n, C-p their meaning based
> on visual lines, based on user feedback.
I think C-a should move to the beginning of a buffer line, and
similarly for the others.
Making it move to the beginning of a visual line means that where the
cursor ends up
would depend on the width of the window and how the line was wrapped.
When I record a keystroke macro, I often begin it with C-a to make
sure I am at the beginning of the buffer line before e.g. searching
for something. If C-a sometimes went to somewhere else, then the
macro would not work correctly. Sometimes keystroke macros get named
and saved. I have a few such in my customization, though I would have
to read them intensely to see if they will break if the meaning of
commands is altered.
If Emacs 23 has changed the meaning of C-a C-e C-n C-p, or made the
meaning depend on some mode, then I think that is a mistake.
> So do I understand you correctly that you want the bindings to be
> same in 2.x and in 1.x, i.e. as in Emacs 23?
> I'm confused as you mention macros, which seem to require buffer-
> based semantics.
I thought buffer-based semantics was how Emacs worked. It is what my
fingers expect. I would like this behavior to continue.
More information about the MacOSX-Emacs