`inhibit-field-text-motion', however, is marked as user option in
xemacs. Was so since field (re-) implementation appeared in its
`xemacs-base' package on 2004/09/07 20:09:16 +0. This is perhaps why
assumed that is is also user option in emacs.
On Thu, 14 Dec 2006 00:39:52 +0900 Miles Bader wrote in
<87lklbu7nb.fsf(a)catnip.gol.com> about it in comint mode buffers:
If you set it permanently, you are asking for trouble.
This should also hold for comint in xemacs, now that it is largely
synched with emacs. Maintainer(s) of fields in both in emacs and
xemacs, please clarify `inhibit-field-text-motion' status.
This does not necessarily mean stripping it of user option mark.
Setting it permanently to non-`nil' may certainly be useful as
described in other messages on the topic. This is the primary reason
why I personally favor making / leaving `inhibit-field-text-motion'
user option. This has nothing to do with compatibility with xemacs
implementation, which is even inconsistent in other ways as mentioned
in <13lkpeawcu.fsf(a)mo.msk.ru> of Thu, 24 Aug 2006 21:15:29 +0400
(<checking for fields>).
Note that `inhibit-field-text-motion' status issue is largely
independent of those described in <checking for fields>. Most of them
remain even if `inhibit-field-text-motion' becomes officially
customizeable. However, setting `inhibit-field-text-motion' is a way
around some of these issues.
XEmacs-Beta mailing list