On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 07:45:35PM +0000, Guillaume Munch wrote: > Le 14/01/2016 20:13, Enrico Forestieri a écrit : > >On Thu, Jan 14, 2016 at 03:59:41PM +0000, Guillaume Munch wrote: > >> > >>We might be speaking of two different issues: > >> > >>* If I click on the right-hand half of the separator, the cursor moves > >>after the separator both visually and logically (a position that cannot > >>be reached using ← and →). > >> > >>* If I click further on the line to the right of the separator (does not > >>need to be too far away), then the cursor gets located visually to the > >>left and logically to the right (what could be reached using ↑ and ↓ > >>until your patch). > >> > >>To see if the cursor is logically to the left or the right of the > >>separator, I try to see which of Del of Backspace deletes it. > > > >I have now found where to tweak the sources and the attached x1.diff > >patch solves the issue for me. > > Thanks again for taking all these remarks into account. > > x1.diff works as expected, it solves both issues, and I am ready to +1 you.
Committed. > However, this reveals new ways of creating an "after" cursor position: > > * A visually-after cursor position appears with Ctrl+Shift+Arrows > (LFUN_*_SELECT_WORD of something like this). It remains a right position > after deselection, for instance by doing copy and immediately paste. > > * A logically-after cursor position appears when double clicking the > separator inset or the line. I will have a look. However, this may take some time because, as already said, I am not too familiar with this part of the code. > >>>>A second issue I just noticed is when deleting the separator: the > >>>>paragraph after should not immediately be merged with the one that > >>>>contains the deleted separator, if none is empty, I think. Hitting Del > >>>>should just remove the separator. (To test this, start with two > >>>>non-empty enumerate environments with a par break separator at the end > >>>>of the first one, and then try to delete the separator.) > >>> > >>>I will have a look at this. > > > >The attached x2.diff patch takes care of this. It seems that this > >behavior was a deliberate choice of mine, but it was wrong, apparently. > > > Actually I think it was a good idea, but only when the separator is alone on > the line. Would you like to keep your code but add instead a check for the > separator being alone on its paragraph? Otherwise I can vouch for the patch, > if you prefer removing your code. On second thought, I think it is better to not complicate the code for a not so clear improvement. If the separator was alone on the line, that line will be automatically removed by the DEPM mechanism. So, I committed the patch as is. -- Enrico
