Re: [RFC] Rewrite org-(forward|backward)-paragraph
Since there was no negative feedback, I pushed to master. Thanks.
Re: [RFC] Rewrite org-(forward|backward)-paragraph
Hello, Kévin Le Gouguec writes: > I don't know how useful my feedback will be, since I'm not a heavy user > of paragraph-based movement[1], but here goes! Thank you! > I've danced around ORG-NEWS to assess the changes; what I observed does > feel closer to text-mode (point moves to the blank lines between > paragraphs instead of to the paragraph starts), the other changes I > could spot do not strike me as deal-breaking: > > - point now jumps over tight lists[2] instead of stopping at each > item, The idea is to avoid some trivial moves where C-n would be sufficient, e.g., in tables, properties drawers. Also Text mode skip those, since it doesn't understand such structures. > - point stops a few more times within code blocks, acting like > #+begin_src and #+end_src are paragraphs of their own, instead of > jumping over the whole block; also, forward and backward movements are > now symmetric > > Are there other situations where you think your changes could be > controversial? I don't think it's much controversial, but stop points are necessarily opinionated. I hope they make sense. Also, testing could unveil some bugs. >> WDYT?e Also, what should be done with M-{ and M-}? > > FWIW, I think that reducing the distance between Org mode and The Rest > of Emacs™ is a commendable goal, so I would vote for binding paragraph > functions to M-{ and M-}, and moving element functions to C- and > C-. I realize that this might be too big a change for the sake of > conformity though. Honestly, I don't know if Sexp-based navigation is useful at all. Does anyone use such navigation ? > (And again: I don't use these functions very often, so my vote probably > shouldn't carry too much weight.) I don't either. I didn't notice there was a difference until recently. Regards, -- Nicolas Goaziou
Re: [RFC] Rewrite org-(forward|backward)-paragraph
Hi Nicolas! I don't know how useful my feedback will be, since I'm not a heavy user of paragraph-based movement[1], but here goes! Nicolas Goaziou writes: > In any case, the purpose of this rewrite is to mimic more closely > expected behaviour from `forward-paragraph' and `backward-paragraph' > functions, as found, e.g., in Text mode. Unlike Text mode, navigation in > Org mode is usually not linear, but both should feel the same, for > example, when the document is indeed linear. I've danced around ORG-NEWS to assess the changes; what I observed does feel closer to text-mode (point moves to the blank lines between paragraphs instead of to the paragraph starts), the other changes I could spot do not strike me as deal-breaking: - point now jumps over tight lists[2] instead of stopping at each item, - point stops a few more times within code blocks, acting like #+begin_src and #+end_src are paragraphs of their own, instead of jumping over the whole block; also, forward and backward movements are now symmetric Are there other situations where you think your changes could be controversial? > WDYT? Also, what should be done with M-{ and M-}? FWIW, I think that reducing the distance between Org mode and The Rest of Emacs™ is a commendable goal, so I would vote for binding paragraph functions to M-{ and M-}, and moving element functions to C- and C-. I realize that this might be too big a change for the sake of conformity though. (And again: I don't use these functions very often, so my vote probably shouldn't carry too much weight.) Thank you for working on this! [1] Curly brackets are cumbersome with AZERTY, so I never took the habit of moving by paragraphs outside org-mode. Likewise with Org's bindings: my fingers are too lazy to reach for the arrow keys for something as often-used as movement. [2] I.e. lists without newlines between items.