Re: need option so line-move-to-column ignores fields, plus patch

[Ken Manheimer]

On 8/31/06, Richard Stallman <address@hidden> wrote:
>     the bug is that i can't use text fields this way without sacrificing
>     column retention on line moves, as far as i can tell.
>     line-move-to-column is hard-wired to respect fields when seeking the
>     prior positions column, so that moving the cursor between topics
>     usually leaves the cursor at column 0, which is almost always not what
>     the user wants.
>
> Creating a new variable can enable allout to get what it wants.
> But that is a sort of a cop-out, because users might want the same
> thing in other modes that use fields, sometimes.
>
> So I wonder: can you identify something about the pattern of use of
> the fields which makes this result desirable?  Then
> line-move-to-column could detect that usage.

that's a good question.  i don't see a pattern justifiable with some
principle better than what line-move-ignore-fields expresses, however:

i want fields respected when moving within a line - specifically, when
moving from the right of the boundary towards the boundary.  on the
other hand, i want the column retained, whatever the column, when
moving between lines.  (hot-spot navigation, which uses shortcut
versions of outline navigation keys, automatically leaves the cursor
on the bullet, so it's not necessary for next-line/previous-line
navigation to do so.)

(currently, i have everything in the outline-structure side of the
headline, from the left margin to a space to the right of the topic
bullet, being 'field 'boundary.  it works to have them other fields,
except for the right-most one just before the content being 'boundary,
but not as well.  all the headline content, to the right of that, has
no field.  that gets the behavior i described previously, where the
cursor stays within the content on the first ^A, and then moves into
the structure area the next time.  i've tried some other combinations
of field settings, but this works exactly as i want for inter-line
motion, and none of the alternatives which provide the desired in-line
motion have any advantages for cross-line motion, and most are worse.)

--
ken
address@hidden
http://myriadicity.net