Everything works perfectly now, thank you.
On Wed, Apr 8, 2026 at 8:07 PM Gavin Smith <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Wed, Apr 08, 2026 at 09:56:29AM +0800, aidan wrote: > > Thank you for the reply. > > > > I do not think this is a reasonable change. > > > > From a logical perspective, move-to-next-xref / move-to-prev-xref no longer > > follow the "Page Only" behavior, i.e., "Just stop": > > > > ‘Page Only’ > > Just stop, changing nothing. With this value, no scrolling > > command can change the node that is being viewed. > > > > For other cursor movement commands such as next-line / forward-char, the > > behavior is still "Just stop", but for move-to-next-xref / move-to-prev-xref > > it becomes "Cycle", which is very inconsistent. > > > > > > In terms of functionality, this also makes it impossible to have > > move-to-next-xref / move-to-prev-xref stop at node boundaries. > > > > > > From a personal preference standpoint, I really like when move-to-next-xref > > stops at the last xref in the current node and provides a clear message, so > > I know explicitly that this is the last xref. similar to how M-x next-line > > reports that this is the last line. > > Your preferences seem reasonable. I've reverted the change to cycle > round the xrefs (with that combination of variables), and again > move-to-next-xref / move-to-prev-xref stop at the end (or start) of > a node. I've added new messages when there is no later > (or earlier) cross-reference.
