After an evaluation, GNOME has moved from Bugzilla to GitLab. Learn more about GitLab.
No new issues can be reported in GNOME Bugzilla anymore.
To report an issue in a GNOME project, go to GNOME GitLab.
Do not go to GNOME Gitlab for: Bluefish, Doxygen, GnuCash, GStreamer, java-gnome, LDTP, NetworkManager, Tomboy.
Bug 649589 - GtkTextView Word Motions Inconsistent
GtkTextView Word Motions Inconsistent
Status: RESOLVED DUPLICATE of bug 727972
Product: gtk+
Classification: Platform
Component: Widget: GtkTextView
unspecified
Other Linux
: Normal minor
: ---
Assigned To: gtk-bugs
gtk-bugs
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
 
Reported: 2011-05-06 18:08 UTC by Duncan M.
Modified: 2014-04-10 15:31 UTC
See Also:
GNOME target: ---
GNOME version: ---



Description Duncan M. 2011-05-06 18:08:29 UTC
GtkTextView appears to have  inconsistent word motions (Ctrl+Left/Right and their deletion counterparts). Some issues with them have been reported before, but they don't seem to be exactly the same issue. It may be that the actual behavior (or parts of it) is intended to be helpful, but it is different than other toolkits. (It is particularly annoying while editing source code in Gedit, so maybe it would be better to have an option for this inside applications.)

An example is best to describe the first inconsistency:

   this->that();

From the end of the line, pressing ctrl+left moves the cursor directly after >. Pressing ctrl+right from this location moves the cursor directly do the end of the word 'that'. (So the motions are not exactly 'opposite'.)

There is no way to use the same motions to return to the starting position either, because it will skip *past* the next word on the *next* line.

Blank lines are also an issue, as Ctrl+Left and Ctrl+Right will move to the beginning or end of the word at the beginning or end of the range of blank lines (respectively). (And, any lines that only have punctuation are considered blank)

Anyway, I hope this helps someone.
Comment 1 Duncan M. 2011-05-14 00:27:54 UTC
Bug 61176 and 611323
Comment 2 Duncan M. 2011-05-14 00:29:39 UTC
(In reply to comment #1)
> Bug 61176 and 611323

Oops. That should have been:
Bug 61176 and Bug 611323 are similar.
Comment 3 Sébastien Wilmet 2014-04-10 15:31:06 UTC
The root of the problem is bug #727972.

*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 727972 ***