emacs-orgmode
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[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



reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]