Re: Questioning the new behavior of `open-line'.

[Karl Fogel]

John Wiegley <address@hidden> writes:
>Correct. We have several things in play here:
>
>  1. When electric-indent-mode is off, everything is fine.
>
>  2. When electric-indent-mode is on, C-o behaves in an unexpected fashion.
>
>  3. We should fix C-o when electric-indent-mode is on, so its behavior is not
>     affected by electric-indent-mode.

I was only arguing for (3), FWIW.  I have no opinion on whether 
electric-indent-mode should be on or off by default.  When it is on, however, I 
don't think it should affect open-line's behavior anyway.  The old open-line 
behavior is a better way for open-line to behave, and a less surprising 
behavior, even when electric-indent-mode is on.

Was this specific effect on `open-line' even contemplated in the prior 
discussion about turning on electric-indent-mode by default?  I didn't follow 
that thread, but unless the topic was specifically raised, I don't think that 
"electric-indent-mode is now the default" equates to "open-line should have 
this new behavior".

Let me put it this way: if electric-indent-mode being *off* were still the 
default, and someone changed open-line to be sensitive to electric-indent-mode 
in this way, I'd still raise the same question: should open-line behave this 
way when electric-indent-mode is on?

So electric-indent-mode being on or off *by default* is unrelated to the 
open-line question.  The question is, should open-line behave in this new way 
when electric-indent-mode is on?  (And I think the answer is "no".)

>  4. We should disable electric-indent-mode by default.
>
> Since I wasn't present for the discussion when electric-indent-mode
> was enabled by default, I'd like to reopen that discussion with regard
> to 25.1.  Probably on a separate thread from this one.

Neither for nor against, personally, but agree it is a separate thread anyway.

Best,
-Karl