[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [O] Bug: linum-mode + org-indent-mode cursor movement problems [8.2.
From: |
Nicolas Goaziou |
Subject: |
Re: [O] Bug: linum-mode + org-indent-mode cursor movement problems [8.2.10 (release_8.2.10 @ /usr/share/emacs/25.2/lisp/org/)] |
Date: |
Fri, 17 Nov 2017 23:30:50 +0100 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/25.3 (gnu/linux) |
Hello,
Tom Schutter <address@hidden> writes:
> If both linum-mode (or nlinum-mode) and org-indent-mode are enabled,
> then moving the cursor to the previous line using <up> causes it to
> jump horizontally to the right. The jump matches the current
> indentation. I would expect the cursor to remain in the same column.
>
> Load linum.org (contents below) with minimal config. linum.org will
> enable linum-mode and org-indent-mode:
>
> emacs -Q linum.org
>
> Place your cursor on the "2" in the fourth line and press <up>. The
> cursor will jump two columns to the right to the "4" in the third
> line. Press <up> again and the cursor will move to the "4" in the
> second line. Press <up> again and the cursor will jump back to the "e"
> in the first line.
>
> What is interesting is that you get different behavior when using
> <down>. The cursor remains in the same column as you move down each
> line. So starting on the "e" in the first line, pressing <down> moves
> the cursor to the "2" on the second line.
>
> If you insert a second level heading in between the first and the
> second line, then the jumps will be four columns instead of two.
>
> I discovered this problem first in nlimum-mode, but it is easier to
> reproduce using linum-mode when starting Emacs with -Q.
>
> Contents of linum.org:
>
> * heading
> 1234 line 2
> 1234 line 3
> 1234 line 4
> # Local Variables:
> # eval: (org-indent-mode 1)
> # eval: (linum-mode 1)
> # End:
I don't think it's worth fixing: linum.el and nlinum.el are on their way
out since Emacs 26 will ship with the same feature, implemented at the
C level.
It would be nice to know, however, if there is the same problem with
that new implementation.
Regards,
--
Nicolas Goaziou