Thank you for the reply.
I do not think this is a reasonable change.
>From a logical perspective, move-to-next-xref / move-to-prev-xref no longer
follow the "Page Only" behavior, i.e., "Just stop":
‘Page Only’
Just stop, changing nothing. With this value, no scrolling
command can change the node that is being viewed.
For other cursor movement commands such as next-line / forward-char, the
behavior is still "Just stop", but for move-to-next-xref / move-to-prev-xref
it becomes "Cycle", which is very inconsistent.
In terms of functionality, this also makes it impossible to have
move-to-next-xref / move-to-prev-xref stop at node boundaries.
>From a personal preference standpoint, I really like when move-to-next-xref
stops at the last xref in the current node and provides a clear message, so
I know explicitly that this is the last xref. similar to how M-x next-line
reports that this is the last line.
I believe a more reasonable change would be:
-
Revert commit 18b79b04 (Cycle round next/prev xrefs if
scroll-behaviour=Page Only.)
-
Revert commit c5fb1eed (Remove misleading messages for
move-to-next/prev-xref)
And change the message from "You are already at the first/last page of this
node" to "Cannot cross the start/end of this node".
I would appreciate your thoughts on this.
On Wed, Apr 8, 2026 at 3:39 AM Gavin Smith <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 07, 2026 at 01:46:48PM +0800, aidan wrote:
> > Thank you, the issue has now been fixed.
> >
> > At the same time, I noticed that in the commit c5fb1eed you changed the
> > behavior of messages.
> >
> > When scroll-behavior=Page Only, the previous messages for
> > move-to-next/prev-xref (“You are already at the first/last page of this
> > node”) were indeed misleading. However, there is now no message at all,
> > which is somewhat inconvenient. It would be helpful if a message could be
> > added in this case.
>
> I've changed the behaviour so that Tab/Shift-Tab (or Alt-Tab) cycle
> round the references in a single node with scroll-behavior=Page Only.
> The only case now that these xref movement commands will appear to
> do nothing is the case when there is only a single xref in the node,
> but I think this is acceptable.
>
