I think I've made as good an argument as I'm going to. It basically boils down to: * if the keys are bound, it's quicker to call mark-foo-forward and then mark-foo-backward than to call mark-foo, then exchange-point-and-mark, then mark-foo again. * This behavior is simpler and more predictable: mark-foo-forward always marks forward. mark-foo sometimes marks forward and sometimes backwards. The complexity of the various mark-foo functions can be seen in how many cases the docstring has. The behavior of the mark-foo-forward, mark-foo-backward functions can be gathered from the name, without reading the docstrings. I understand we have different opinions, so if this isn't convincing, I'll bow out here. Thanks. On Thu, May 18, 2023 at 2:52 AM Eli Zaretskii wrote: > > Cc: Ruijie Yu , Stefan Monnier < > monnier@iro.umontreal.ca>, > > "62892@debbugs.gnu.org" <62892@debbugs.gnu.org>, Juri Linkov < > juri@linkov.net> > > From: Zachary Kanfer > > Date: Wed, 17 May 2023 23:17:01 -0400 > > > > Is there anything I can do to make this patch easier to evaluate? As far > as I'm aware, I've addressed > > all comments that have been made in this thread. > > My POV is still as it was before: I'm not sure we should add these new > commands, since the existing commands already provide this > functionality, if you use "C-x C-x" to switch the direction. > > I've seen nothing in the discussion which made me change my mind. Did > I overlook some convincing arguments? >