unofficial mirror of bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org 
 help / color / mirror / code / Atom feed
* bug#17555: 24.4.50; 'mark-paragraph' does not allow extending the region backwards
@ 2014-05-22 20:23 Dani Moncayo
  2019-08-14 23:51 ` Lars Ingebrigtsen
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Dani Moncayo @ 2014-05-22 20:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: 17555

After reading (info "(emacs) Marking Objects") and doing some tests, I
wonder why 'mark-paragraph' does not behave like 'mark-word' and
'mark-sexp' when the mark is located before point.  In that situation
'mark-word' and 'mark-sexp' move the mark backwards to select an
earlier element (which I think is TRT), but 'mark-paragraph' moves the
mark forward instead (like when the mark is after point).

Could this inconsistency be fixed?

TIA

In GNU Emacs 24.4.50.1 (x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu, GTK+ Version 3.10.8)
 of 2014-05-05 on LEG570
Windowing system distributor `The X.Org Foundation', version 11.0.11501000
System Description: Ubuntu 14.04 LTS


-- 
Dani Moncayo





^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread

* bug#17555: 24.4.50; 'mark-paragraph' does not allow extending the region backwards
  2014-05-22 20:23 bug#17555: 24.4.50; 'mark-paragraph' does not allow extending the region backwards Dani Moncayo
@ 2019-08-14 23:51 ` Lars Ingebrigtsen
  2019-08-15 18:41   ` Juri Linkov
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Lars Ingebrigtsen @ 2019-08-14 23:51 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Dani Moncayo; +Cc: 17555

Dani Moncayo <dmoncayo@gmail.com> writes:

> After reading (info "(emacs) Marking Objects") and doing some tests, I
> wonder why 'mark-paragraph' does not behave like 'mark-word' and
> 'mark-sexp' when the mark is located before point.  In that situation
> 'mark-word' and 'mark-sexp' move the mark backwards to select an
> earlier element (which I think is TRT), but 'mark-paragraph' moves the
> mark forward instead (like when the mark is after point).
>
> Could this inconsistency be fixed?

It is somewhat inconsistent, but it's been documented to be this way
since at least 2001:

--
Put point at beginning of this paragraph, mark at end.
The paragraph marked is the one that contains point or follows point.
--

So I don't think this is something than can be changed at this point,
and I'm closing this bug report.

-- 
(domestic pets only, the antidote for overdose, milk.)
   bloggy blog: http://lars.ingebrigtsen.no





^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread

* bug#17555: 24.4.50; 'mark-paragraph' does not allow extending the region backwards
  2019-08-14 23:51 ` Lars Ingebrigtsen
@ 2019-08-15 18:41   ` Juri Linkov
  2019-08-20  6:50     ` Dani Moncayo
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Juri Linkov @ 2019-08-15 18:41 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Lars Ingebrigtsen; +Cc: 17555, Dani Moncayo

>> After reading (info "(emacs) Marking Objects") and doing some tests, I
>> wonder why 'mark-paragraph' does not behave like 'mark-word' and
>> 'mark-sexp' when the mark is located before point.  In that situation
>> 'mark-word' and 'mark-sexp' move the mark backwards to select an
>> earlier element (which I think is TRT), but 'mark-paragraph' moves the
>> mark forward instead (like when the mark is after point).
>>
>> Could this inconsistency be fixed?
>
> It is somewhat inconsistent, but it's been documented to be this way
> since at least 2001:
>
> --
> Put point at beginning of this paragraph, mark at end.
> The paragraph marked is the one that contains point or follows point.
> --

mark-paragraph could be fixed for consistency, but the problem is that
there are more commands that should be fixed then as well, e.g. mark-defun,
mark-page...





^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread

* bug#17555: 24.4.50; 'mark-paragraph' does not allow extending the region backwards
  2019-08-15 18:41   ` Juri Linkov
@ 2019-08-20  6:50     ` Dani Moncayo
  2019-08-20 22:05       ` Juri Linkov
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Dani Moncayo @ 2019-08-20  6:50 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Juri Linkov; +Cc: 17555, Lars Ingebrigtsen

> mark-paragraph could be fixed for consistency, but the problem is that
> there are more commands that should be fixed then as well, e.g. mark-defun,
> mark-page...

I may be missing something, but I don't see the downside of making
them all consistent.  I.e., I don't think such a change would break
anyone's workflow.

-- 
Dani Moncayo





^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread

* bug#17555: 24.4.50; 'mark-paragraph' does not allow extending the region backwards
  2019-08-20  6:50     ` Dani Moncayo
@ 2019-08-20 22:05       ` Juri Linkov
  2019-08-21  7:19         ` Dani Moncayo
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Juri Linkov @ 2019-08-20 22:05 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Dani Moncayo; +Cc: 17555, Lars Ingebrigtsen

>> mark-paragraph could be fixed for consistency, but the problem is that
>> there are more commands that should be fixed then as well, e.g. mark-defun,
>> mark-page...
>
> I may be missing something, but I don't see the downside of making
> them all consistent.  I.e., I don't think such a change would break
> anyone's workflow.

I agree all they could be consistent.  But what if some users prefer
the old way?  Maybe add a new customizable option that would affect
the behavior of all these commands (extend/don't extend the region backwards)?





^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread

* bug#17555: 24.4.50; 'mark-paragraph' does not allow extending the region backwards
  2019-08-20 22:05       ` Juri Linkov
@ 2019-08-21  7:19         ` Dani Moncayo
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Dani Moncayo @ 2019-08-21  7:19 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Juri Linkov; +Cc: 17555, Lars Ingebrigtsen

On Wed, Aug 21, 2019 at 12:07 AM Juri Linkov <juri@linkov.net> wrote:
>
> >> mark-paragraph could be fixed for consistency, but the problem is that
> >> there are more commands that should be fixed then as well, e.g. mark-defun,
> >> mark-page...
> >
> > I may be missing something, but I don't see the downside of making
> > them all consistent.  I.e., I don't think such a change would break
> > anyone's workflow.
>
> I agree all they could be consistent.  But what if some users prefer
> the old way?

I'd be surprised to see such users.  But OK.

> Maybe add a new customizable option that would affect
> the behavior of all these commands (extend/don't extend the region backwards)?

I'd be fine with that (though it would increase the complexity of the
code to cater to some use-case that perhaps no one would care about).

-- 
Dani Moncayo





^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread

end of thread, other threads:[~2019-08-21  7:19 UTC | newest]

Thread overview: 6+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2014-05-22 20:23 bug#17555: 24.4.50; 'mark-paragraph' does not allow extending the region backwards Dani Moncayo
2019-08-14 23:51 ` Lars Ingebrigtsen
2019-08-15 18:41   ` Juri Linkov
2019-08-20  6:50     ` Dani Moncayo
2019-08-20 22:05       ` Juri Linkov
2019-08-21  7:19         ` Dani Moncayo

Code repositories for project(s) associated with this public inbox

	https://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/emacs.git

This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).