I hate the new indentation in message-mode

I hate the new indentation in message-mode

[Didier Verna]

       In the good ol'days, I used to start all my paragraphs with a simple
TAB, including paragraphs answering to quotations. Now, here's what it gives
me. This is stupid. I hate that. I'm getting conservative. I'm against
technology. I'm for simple and natural things. I'm leaving computers. I'll
switch back to my granny's plain ol'type writer.


> This is a quotation line

       I need two tabs to write this and it doesn't give me what I want.

> Thiiiiiis is another quotation line

            No, this is stupid. I want a real tab.

> Thiiiiiiiiiiiiiis is yet another quotation line

                    Damn :-(

-- 
Didier Verna, didier@lrde.epita.fr, http://www.lrde.epita.fr/~didier

EPITA / LRDE, 14-16 rue Voltaire   Tel.+33 (1) 53 14 59 47
94276 Le Kremlin-Bicêtre, France   Fax.+33 (1) 44 08 01 99   didier@xemacs.org

Re: I hate the new indentation in message-mode

[Kai Großjohann]

Didier Verna <didier@lrde.epita.fr> writes:

>        In the good ol'days, I used to start all my paragraphs with a
> simple TAB, including paragraphs answering to quotations. Now,
> here's what it gives me. This is stupid. I hate that.

Hm.  I thought that indent-relative was the best thing since sliced
bread...

Anyway, M-i should do what you want.  If you don't use the completion
functionality of message-tab, you can also just rebind the TAB key.
If you do use the completion functionality, you could modify the
source.

If enough people want your behavior, maybe a user option could be
introduced.

kai
-- 
Symbol's function definition is void: signature

Re: I hate the new indentation in message-mode

[Steve Youngs]

|--==> "KG" == Kai Großjohann <Kai.Grossjohann@CS.Uni-Dortmund.DE> writes:

  KG> Didier Verna <didier@lrde.epita.fr> writes:
  >>In the good ol'days, I used to start all my paragraphs with a
  >>simple TAB, including paragraphs answering to quotations. Now,
  >>here's what it gives me. This is stupid. I hate that.

  KG> Hm.  I thought that indent-relative was the best thing since sliced
  KG> bread...

The bread's gone moldy.

  KG> Anyway, M-i should do what you want.  If you don't use the completion
  KG> functionality of message-tab, you can also just rebind the TAB key.
  KG> If you do use the completion functionality, you could modify the
  KG> source.

Personally, I use M-TAB completion in the To|Cc etc headers (from
BBDB).  So, for me at least, rebinding TAB wouldn't cause me any
suffering. 

But really, when you are in the middle of editing some text, a TAB
should be a TAB.  Not some other fancy thing.  And most people expect
their TABs to be consistent.

-- 
|---<Steve Youngs>---------------<GnuPG KeyID: 9E7E2820>---|
|            XEmacs - It's not just an editor.             |
|                    It's a way of life.                   |
|------------------------------------<youngs@xemacs.org>---|

Re: I hate the new indentation in message-mode

[Kai Großjohann]

Steve Youngs <youngs@xemacs.org> writes:

> Personally, I use M-TAB completion in the To|Cc etc headers (from
> BBDB).  So, for me at least, rebinding TAB wouldn't cause me any
> suffering. 

But TAB can do completion in Newsgroups headers, too.  And more
headers if you add the entry in message-completion-alist.

> But really, when you are in the middle of editing some text, a TAB
> should be a TAB.  Not some other fancy thing.  And most people expect
> their TABs to be consistent.

A matter of taste, I guess.

kai
-- 
Symbol's function definition is void: signature

Re: I hate the new indentation in message-mode

[Paul Jarc]

Kai.Grossjohann@CS.Uni-Dortmund.DE (Kai Großjohann) wrote:
> Steve Youngs <youngs@xemacs.org> writes:
>> Personally, I use M-TAB completion in the To|Cc etc headers (from
>> BBDB).  So, for me at least, rebinding TAB wouldn't cause me any
>> suffering. 
>
> But TAB can do completion in Newsgroups headers, too.  And more
> headers if you add the entry in message-completion-alist.

Could it be made to give the old behavior when not within one of those
fields?


paul

Re: I hate the new indentation in message-mode

[Steve Youngs]

|--==> "KG" == Kai Großjohann <Kai.Grossjohann@CS.Uni-Dortmund.DE> writes:

  KG> Steve Youngs <youngs@xemacs.org> writes:
  >>Personally, I use M-TAB completion in the To|Cc etc headers (from
  >>BBDB).  So, for me at least, rebinding TAB wouldn't cause me any
  >>suffering. 

  KG> But TAB can do completion in Newsgroups headers, too.  And more
  KG> headers if you add the entry in message-completion-alist.

Would it be possible to have the completion in the headers and revert
to normal TAB behaviour outside of the headers?

-- 
|---<Steve Youngs>---------------<GnuPG KeyID: 9E7E2820>---|
|            XEmacs - It's not just an editor.             |
|                    It's a way of life.                   |
|------------------------------------<youngs@xemacs.org>---|

Re: I hate the new indentation in message-mode

[Kai Großjohann]

Steve Youngs <youngs@xemacs.org> writes:

> Would it be possible to have the completion in the headers and revert
> to normal TAB behaviour outside of the headers?

I think it would be useful to have a variable for the function to
execute in the body.

kai
-- 
Symbol's function definition is void: signature

Re: I hate the new indentation in message-mode

[Didier Verna]

Kai.Grossjohann@CS.Uni-Dortmund.DE (Kai Großjohann) wrote:

> Didier Verna <didier@lrde.epita.fr> writes:
>
>>        In the good ol'days, I used to start all my paragraphs with a
>> simple TAB, including paragraphs answering to quotations. Now,
>> here's what it gives me. This is stupid. I hate that.
>
> Hm.  I thought that indent-relative was the best thing since sliced
> bread...

        :-)

> Anyway, M-i should do what you want.

        Yes I know. What I really meant was that people used to having TAB
produce a TAB (sounds logical right ? ;-) and suddenly facing a fancy^D^D^Dodd
behavior will for sure start complaining, and I think they'll be right.


> If enough people want your behavior, maybe a user option could be
> introduced.

        Or the current bindings could just be exchanged ?

-- 
Didier Verna, didier@lrde.epita.fr, http://www.lrde.epita.fr/~didier

EPITA / LRDE, 14-16 rue Voltaire   Tel.+33 (1) 53 14 59 47
94276 Le Kremlin-Bicêtre, France   Fax.+33 (1) 44 08 01 99   didier@xemacs.org

Re: I hate the new indentation in message-mode

[Karl Eichwalder]

Kai.Grossjohann@CS.Uni-Dortmund.DE (Kai Großjohann) writes:

> If enough people want your behavior, maybe a user option could be
> introduced.

Is this a vote?  I "complained" earlier.  Please, revert to the old
behavior we've had for years.  Don't force users to press M-i when all
they want is TAB.

-- 
ke@suse.de (work) / keichwa@gmx.net (home):              |
http://www.suse.de/~ke/                                  |      ,__o
Free Translation Project:                                |    _-\_<,
http://www.iro.umontreal.ca/contrib/po/HTML/             |   (*)/'(*)

Re: I hate the new indentation in message-mode

[Kai Großjohann]

Karl Eichwalder <keichwa@gmx.net> writes:

> Kai.Grossjohann@CS.Uni-Dortmund.DE (Kai Großjohann) writes:
>
>> If enough people want your behavior, maybe a user option could be
>> introduced.
>
> Is this a vote?  I "complained" earlier.  Please, revert to the old
> behavior we've had for years.  Don't force users to press M-i when all
> they want is TAB.

I've now introduced a variable message-tab-body-function.  It defaults
to indent-relative, though.

Maybe the best thing to do is to default to the function that's used
in text mode.  What do you all think?

kai
-- 
Symbol's function definition is void: signature

Re: I hate the new indentation in message-mode

[Didier Verna]

Kai.Grossjohann@CS.Uni-Dortmund.DE (Kai Großjohann) wrote:

> I've now introduced a variable message-tab-body-function. It defaults to
> indent-relative, though. Maybe the best thing to do is to default to the
> function that's used in text mode. What do you all think?

        Having yet another variable is overkill to me[1], but I don't mind, as
long as the default is switched back to tab-to-tab-stop. Plain TAB, that's
all. That's what people have been getting for *years*.


Footnotes: 
[1]  as I said earlier, puting indent-relative on M-i would have been
sufficient to me.

-- 
Didier Verna, didier@lrde.epita.fr, http://www.lrde.epita.fr/~didier

EPITA / LRDE, 14-16 rue Voltaire   Tel.+33 (1) 53 14 59 47
94276 Le Kremlin-Bicêtre, France   Fax.+33 (1) 44 08 01 99   didier@xemacs.org

Re: I hate the new indentation in message-mode

[Kai Großjohann]

Didier Verna <didier@lrde.epita.fr> writes:

> Having yet another variable is overkill to me[1], but I don't mind,
> as long as the default is switched back to tab-to-tab-stop. Plain
> TAB, that's all. That's what people have been getting for *years*.

It's not overkill.  I want indent-relative!

Therefore, a variable is clearly the way to go.  Then everybody can
have their preferred behavior.

kai
-- 
Symbol's function definition is void: signature

Re: I hate the new indentation in message-mode

[Samuel Padgett]

Didier Verna <didier@lrde.epita.fr> writes:

> Footnotes: 
> [1]  as I said earlier, puting indent-relative on M-i would have been
> sufficient to me.

Eee.  I'm used to Emacs changing the meaning of the TAB key on me, but
knowing that M-i is always tab-to-tab-stop is comforting.  I'm not
sure changing M-i in just message-mode is a good idea.

Sam
-- 
May all your PUSHes be POPped.