M-RET in message mode: don't reformat?

M-RET in message mode: don't reformat?

[Kai Großjohann]

I think it was me who suggested that M-RET do like M-q on the second
half of the split paragraph.

Now it turns out it's annoying me :-(  If you use M-RET in the middle
of an enumeration or the like, then it fails.

Ideas?
-- 
A preposition is not a good thing to end a sentence with.

Re: M-RET in message mode: don't reformat?

[Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen]

kai.grossjohann@gmx.net (Kai Großjohann) writes:

> Now it turns out it's annoying me :-(  If you use M-RET in the middle
> of an enumeration or the like, then it fails.

What is `M-RET' supposed to do if it's not supposed to do what it
does?  :-)

-- 
(domestic pets only, the antidote for overdose, milk.)
   larsi@gnus.org * Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen

Re: M-RET in message mode: don't reformat?

[Kai Großjohann]

Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen <larsi@gnus.org> writes:

> kai.grossjohann@gmx.net (Kai Großjohann) writes:
>
>> Now it turns out it's annoying me :-(  If you use M-RET in the middle
>> of an enumeration or the like, then it fails.
>
> What is `M-RET' supposed to do if it's not supposed to do what it
> does?  :-)

Right now, M-RET (1) inserts a newline, (2) prepends quote prefix to the
second line, and (3) reformats lower half of split paragraph.

I think (1)+(2) is useful even in the absence of (3).
-- 
A preposition is not a good thing to end a sentence with.

Re: M-RET in message mode: don't reformat?

[Niklas Morberg]

kai.grossjohann@gmx.net (Kai Großjohann) writes:

> Right now, M-RET (1) inserts a newline, (2) prepends quote prefix to the
> second line, and (3) reformats lower half of split paragraph.

Would it be difficult to change (2) to only prepend the
quote prefix if it does not exist? If I use M-RET at the end
of a line, the following line gets double quotes. Like this:

> >
> I think (1)+(2) is useful even in the absence of (3).

FWIW I like (3).

Niklas

Re: M-RET in message mode: don't reformat?

[Kai Großjohann]

Niklas Morberg <niklas.morberg@axis.com> writes:

> kai.grossjohann@gmx.net (Kai Großjohann) writes:
>
>> Right now, M-RET (1) inserts a newline, (2) prepends quote prefix to the
>> second line, and (3) reformats lower half of split paragraph.
>
> Would it be difficult to change (2) to only prepend the
> quote prefix if it does not exist? If I use M-RET at the end
> of a line, the following line gets double quotes. Like this:
>
>> >
>> I think (1)+(2) is useful even in the absence of (3).

It's a good idea.

> FWIW I like (3).

I don't want to remove (3), I was suggesting a user option.  So don't
be afraid :-)

-- 
A preposition is not a good thing to end a sentence with.

Re: M-RET in message mode: don't reformat?

[Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen]

kai.grossjohann@gmx.net (Kai Großjohann) writes:

> I think (1)+(2) is useful even in the absence of (3).

Currently, `C-u M-RET' justifies the text.  Is that useful, at all?
If not, we could just switch the prefix to inhibit (3).

A different approach would be to set an undo boundary before doing
(3), so that you could just say `M-RET C-_' to get the desired
effect...

What do you think?

-- 
(domestic pets only, the antidote for overdose, milk.)
   larsi@gnus.org * Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen

Re: M-RET in message mode: don't reformat?

[Kai Großjohann]

Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen <larsi@gnus.org> writes:

> kai.grossjohann@gmx.net (Kai Großjohann) writes:
>
>> I think (1)+(2) is useful even in the absence of (3).
>
> Currently, `C-u M-RET' justifies the text.  Is that useful, at all?
> If not, we could just switch the prefix to inhibit (3).

I would like that.  But there are those perverts that like
justification :-)  Let them speak up first.

> A different approach would be to set an undo boundary before doing
> (3), so that you could just say `M-RET C-_' to get the desired
> effect...

That's so weird, it's really cool!  Yeah, do it!
-- 
file-error; Data: (Opening input file no such file or directory ~/.signature)

Re: M-RET in message mode: don't reformat?

[Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen]

kai.grossjohann@gmx.net (Kai Großjohann) writes:

>> A different approach would be to set an undo boundary before doing
>> (3), so that you could just say `M-RET C-_' to get the desired
>> effect...
>
> That's so weird, it's really cool!  Yeah, do it!

:-)

I've now done this.  I think using `undo-boudary' in the middle of
long, complex transformations is an underutilized technique.

-- 
(domestic pets only, the antidote for overdose, milk.)
   larsi@gnus.org * Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen

Re: M-RET in message mode: don't reformat?

[François Pinard]

[-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --]
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8, Size: 1106 bytes --]

[Kai Großjohann]

> Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen <larsi@gnus.org> writes:

> > kai.grossjohann@gmx.net (Kai Großjohann) writes:
> >
> >> I think (1)+(2) is useful even in the absence of (3).
> >
> > Currently, `C-u M-RET' justifies the text.  Is that useful, at all?
> > If not, we could just switch the prefix to inhibit (3).

> I would like that.  But there are those perverts that like
> justification :-)  Let them speak up first.

Do you mean simultaneous left/right justification with fixed width fonts?
This is widely known as going against legibility, and Gnus has always have
been oriented towards (standard compliance and) good manners! :-)

So, for misguided people who want to set simultaneous left/right
justification in their outgoing mail, I'm all for Gnus giving them as much
trouble as possible, at least through removing any easiness!  If you really
want to offer with, try a key binding using 13-key sequences (or more): it
would be interesting anyway to learn if Emacs has limits in this area... :-)

-- 
François Pinard   http://www.iro.umontreal.ca/~pinard