From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Juri Linkov Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.bugs Subject: bug#48478: 28.0.50; yank-from-kill-ring and kill-ring-yank-pointer Date: Fri, 21 May 2021 21:18:33 +0300 Organization: LINKOV.NET Message-ID: <87h7iwuf0m.fsf@mail.linkov.net> References: <83h7j1twym.fsf@gnu.org> <874kf1yq92.fsf@mail.linkov.net> <83o8d8s1jd.fsf@gnu.org> <878s4bzt6v.fsf@mail.linkov.net> <83fsyjqwtr.fsf@gnu.org> <87h7iyn0s5.fsf@mail.linkov.net> <831ra1px7n.fsf@gnu.org> <875yzdb7vz.fsf@mail.linkov.net> <83lf89ns51.fsf@gnu.org> <87eee19o24.fsf@mail.linkov.net> <83fsyhnp2r.fsf@gnu.org> <871ra19luh.fsf@mail.linkov.net> <83cztkocqt.fsf@gnu.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="14015"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/28.0.50 (x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) Cc: 48478@debbugs.gnu.org To: Eli Zaretskii Original-X-From: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Fri May 21 20:20:15 2021 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 1lk9kt-0003Yf-IX for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane-mx.org; Fri, 21 May 2021 20:20:15 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:48060 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lk9ks-0007mk-Kp for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane-mx.org; Fri, 21 May 2021 14:20:14 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:54038) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lk9kh-0007mX-Nw for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Fri, 21 May 2021 14:20:03 -0400 Original-Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.43]:54225) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lk9kg-00020I-9p for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Fri, 21 May 2021 14:20:03 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1lk9kg-0003CZ-46 for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Fri, 21 May 2021 14:20:02 -0400 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Resent-From: Juri Linkov Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Fri, 21 May 2021 18:20:02 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 48478 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs Original-Received: via spool by 48478-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B48478.162162115112243 (code B ref 48478); Fri, 21 May 2021 18:20:02 +0000 Original-Received: (at 48478) by debbugs.gnu.org; 21 May 2021 18:19:11 +0000 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:37538 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1lk9jr-0003BP-FR for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 21 May 2021 14:19:11 -0400 Original-Received: from relay1-d.mail.gandi.net ([217.70.183.193]:21291) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1lk9jp-0003B3-6T for 48478@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 21 May 2021 14:19:10 -0400 Original-Received: (Authenticated sender: juri@linkov.net) by relay1-d.mail.gandi.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 02A8A240003; Fri, 21 May 2021 18:19:01 +0000 (UTC) In-Reply-To: <83cztkocqt.fsf@gnu.org> (Eli Zaretskii's message of "Fri, 21 May 2021 08:51:54 +0300") 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:206996 Archived-At: >> It would be unexpected when yanking the edited entry with M-y >> would add it to the kill-ring as its opposite command M-w does. > > Why unexpected? If we document that, it wouldn't be unexpected. > > Once again, we could decide to either add the edited entry to > kill-ring or not add it. If we don't add it, kill-ring-yank-pointer > should stay at its position, which corresponds to the original entry > before the editing. If we do add it, the pointer should be reset to > the slot where the edited entry is. Both of these behaviors can be > easily documented and will be reasonably logical and intuitive, > because they are basically similar to what the old M-y did. What we > do now is much harder to explain and is not intuitive, at least not > according to my intuition. For the case of not adding the edited entry to the kill-ring, now kill-ring-yank-pointer stays at the same position it was before the editing. > Does anyone else have an opinion about this? Regarding the question whether to add the edited entry to the kill-ring, let's hear more opinions.