evil-next-line doesn't work as expected under visual-line-mode

Sat Dec 24 11:32:33 CET 2011

On Fri, Dec 23, 2011 at 03:42:00PM +0100, Titus von der Malsburg wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 23, 2011 at 2:43 PM, Michael Markert
> <markert.michael at googlemail.com> wrote:
> > On 23 Dec 2011, Titus von der Malsburg wrote:
> > Neither, it's a wrong expectation ;) Vim does not do it as well.
> 
> Hm, not sure I agree.  As far as I know Vim doesn't have something
> analogous to visual-line-mode (:set wrap is not quite the same).
> Therefore, I would say that it's not entirely clear what the authentic
> Vim behavior should be under visual-line-mode.  My understanding of
> visual-line-mode is that visual lines should have largely the same
> semantics as buffer-lines have when visual-line-mode is switched off.
> That is, even if something is just one line in the underlying file, it
> should look & feel like several real lines in Emacs if it doesn't fit
> on one line visually.  Hence, I would argue that a visual lines should
> behave like a buffer line in Evil, which means that j, k, <up>, <down>
> should move to the next visual line and not to the next buffer line.

Well, this may be an ideal solution but it's not easy to achieve,
e.g., who would you yank but especially paste visual lines or even
visual blocks? It's not clear how operators and visual state should
work on visual lines because a visual line is not really well defined
but depends, e.g., on the current window size.

Frank