emacs-orgmode
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [O] Problem jumping back & forth between foonote ref and def with 'C


From: Nicolas Goaziou
Subject: Re: [O] Problem jumping back & forth between foonote ref and def with 'C-c C-c'
Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2018 20:13:26 +0200
User-agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/26.1 (gnu/linux)

Hello,

address@hidden writes:

> Now, I visit a file which contains only
>
>    * head
>    foo[fn:1] bar
>    * Footnotes
>
>    [fn:1] tnote
>
> If the cursor is anywhere within the 1st instance of '[fn:1] ' (that
> is, including the space) and I type 'C-c C-c' the cursor ends up on
> the 1st letter of 'tnote'.
>
> I am not sure if this corresponds to what the manual says but, if I
> type 'C-c C-c' again, I get
>
>    user-error: `C-c C-c' can do nothing useful here
>
> i.e., I don't "jump back."  By contrast, with
>
>    emacs -Q
>
> which gives
>
>    Emacs : GNU Emacs 24.5.1 (x86_64-redhat-linux-gnu, GTK+ Version
>    3.18.9) of 2016-04-11 on buildvm-25.phx2.fedoraproject.org Package:
>    Org-mode version 8.2.10 (release_8.2.10 @
>    /usr/share/emacs/24.5/lisp/org/)
>
> if the cursor is anywhere within the 1st instance of '[fn:1]' and I
> type 'C-c C-c' the cursor ends up on the space before 'tnote'.  A 2nd
> 'C-c C-c' brings the cursor back to the 1st '[' of the 1st '[fn:1]'.
> This does correspond to what I would qualify as "jumping back."
>
> In other words, version 8.2.10 behaves as I expect, not the master
> version.  Am I doing/understanding something wrong?

As strange as it may sound, I think both are correct. 

In 9.1, Org puts point at the location where you can start to edit the
definition right away. If you want to "jump back", you can use the Org
mark ring, or simply move backward -- a single character is enough but
you can also move to the beginning of the line -- and use `C-c C-c'
again.

In 8.2, point is at a location where `C-c C-c' operates right away, but
you still have to move forward to start editing the definition.

My gut feelings is the current behaviour is slightly better, but YWWV.

WDYT?

> PS: note the typo in the manual excerpt: "If it is a the
> definition...".

This typo is not present in the latest manual.

Regards,

-- 
Nicolas Goaziou



reply via email to

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