From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.ciao.gmane.io!not-for-mail From: Eli Zaretskii Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.bugs Subject: bug#41934: reverse-region no longer works Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2020 21:44:56 +0300 Message-ID: <83eeqcz00n.fsf@gnu.org> References: <83lfkkz2wr.fsf@gnu.org> <83h7v8z0sd.fsf@gnu.org> Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="ciao.gmane.io:159.69.161.202"; logging-data="98054"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" Cc: 41934@debbugs.gnu.org To: Richard Copley Original-X-From: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Thu Jun 18 20:46:12 2020 Return-path: Envelope-to: geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane-mx.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([209.51.188.17]) by ciao.gmane.io with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1jlzYC-000PPM-5G for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane-mx.org; Thu, 18 Jun 2020 20:46:12 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:60660 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1jlzYB-0001wZ-3q for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane-mx.org; Thu, 18 Jun 2020 14:46:11 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:60894) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1jlzY2-0001wI-TU for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Thu, 18 Jun 2020 14:46:02 -0400 Original-Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.43]:42860) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1jlzY2-0003zt-JX for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Thu, 18 Jun 2020 14:46:02 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1jlzY2-0007kh-Hw for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Thu, 18 Jun 2020 14:46:02 -0400 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Resent-From: Eli Zaretskii Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2020 18:46:02 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 41934 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs Original-Received: via spool by 41934-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B41934.159250591729741 (code B ref 41934); Thu, 18 Jun 2020 18:46:02 +0000 Original-Received: (at 41934) by debbugs.gnu.org; 18 Jun 2020 18:45:17 +0000 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:54406 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1jlzXJ-0007jc-9G for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 18 Jun 2020 14:45:17 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:46348) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1jlzXH-0007jP-GY for 41934@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 18 Jun 2020 14:45:15 -0400 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]:45888) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1jlzXC-0003kM-7P; Thu, 18 Jun 2020 14:45:10 -0400 Original-Received: from [176.228.60.248] (port=1905 helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1jlzXB-0006dS-10; Thu, 18 Jun 2020 14:45:09 -0400 In-Reply-To: (message from Richard Copley on Thu, 18 Jun 2020 19:33:57 +0100) X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list X-BeenThere: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org List-Id: "Bug reports for GNU Emacs, the Swiss army knife of text editors" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: "bug-gnu-emacs" Xref: news.gmane.io gmane.emacs.bugs:182140 Archived-At: > From: Richard Copley > Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2020 19:33:57 +0100 > Cc: 41934@debbugs.gnu.org > > > Looks good, but what if beg and end are on the same line (at the point > > where you added the test)? Does that not warrant the error message? > > Not that error message, no, but rather something like "There are fewer > than two lines in the region". The original message says "lines", plural, so I think it kinda hints on that. We could make it say something that will cover both cases. > I don't see the point of this error at all: if there are fewer than > two lines in the region-to-be-reversed at that point, in my opinion > the command should have no effect. Indeed, it doesn't have any effect. I'm asking whether this should be flagged, since doing that makes no sense.