On Tue, Oct 28, 2003 at 11:09:39AM +0100, Lars Gullik Bj�nnes wrote: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Lars Gullik Bj�nnes) writes: > > | | which does the 'magic' and is bound to the <End> key. Currently, table > | | editing causes attacks of claustrophobia: One get stucks in a line, in a > | | cell, in a table.... > > > | Well... IMHO <End> should not change the outer-row. > > > | But I won't have any strong feelings about this until I have used it > | and begin to dislike it :-) > > I just played a bit with it. And now I agree with myself: > > "<End> should not change the outer-row."
I hope this does not prevent myself from implementing this nevertheless and just bind it in my personal preferences only. > To me it would be utterly confusing having <End> "magic", move out of > insets: To the same degree as the 'everything is an inset idea' probably. What happens if font changes are insets? Should <End> stop at the end of a font change? Ah wait, now you there is a nice excuse for not having font changes as insets: The behaviour of <End> would be totally confusing... Andre' [PS: Just in case you look over to the other editor religion: There are a few standard installs of vim which make <End> behave like I proposed]
