From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Dani Moncayo Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.bugs Subject: bug#10056: 24.0.91; `copy-to-register' does not deactivate the mark Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2012 00:07:06 +0200 Message-ID: References: <87aa7qm1gv.fsf@gnu.org> <87boizuq60.fsf@gnu.org> <20120801211745.GA4203@acm.acm> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1343858864 10348 80.91.229.3 (1 Aug 2012 22:07:44 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2012 22:07:44 +0000 (UTC) Cc: 10056@debbugs.gnu.org, Chong Yidong To: Alan Mackenzie Original-X-From: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Thu Aug 02 00:07:43 2012 Return-path: Envelope-to: geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Swh4x-0000Dj-HY for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Thu, 02 Aug 2012 00:07:43 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:36215 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Swh4w-0002IG-On for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Wed, 01 Aug 2012 18:07:42 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:60336) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Swh4r-00027V-9Y for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Wed, 01 Aug 2012 18:07:38 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Swh4p-0004C2-Rr for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Wed, 01 Aug 2012 18:07:37 -0400 Original-Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.43]:45926) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Swh4p-0004Bx-Nx for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Wed, 01 Aug 2012 18:07:35 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1SwhC2-0006aO-9J for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Wed, 01 Aug 2012 18:15:02 -0400 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Resent-From: Dani Moncayo Original-Sender: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Wed, 01 Aug 2012 22:15:02 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 10056 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs X-GNU-PR-Keywords: Original-Received: via spool by 10056-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B10056.134385927625273 (code B ref 10056); Wed, 01 Aug 2012 22:15:02 +0000 Original-Received: (at 10056) by debbugs.gnu.org; 1 Aug 2012 22:14:36 +0000 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:55472 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1SwhBc-0006Za-23 for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 01 Aug 2012 18:14:36 -0400 Original-Received: from mail-gg0-f172.google.com ([209.85.161.172]:34208) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1SwhBa-0006ZT-0W for 10056@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 01 Aug 2012 18:14:34 -0400 Original-Received: by ggnc4 with SMTP id c4so7850503ggn.3 for <10056@debbugs.gnu.org>; Wed, 01 Aug 2012 15:07:06 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=WgzdyKP2xhNniE/Cy2haf9fPQ6eJ0gLuCYwspNPaS9s=; b=qGyQ/P476X4pbnlMWQEQvp2zJxP3tRRoHxizW6JFfQ+URSJ0Fg+Lj0TCC6r/2SA55l 4sPWNqNGwyAz0Hix/j/de6WxgdTxl+XwqHOYOiMp05pXPpveHqOjrqNemdpELYpOqj6J EFGgzhHX3WsyQM+1p/jHFmUd4oK7d30oSuIg3iCnMEzSQgi0P7oCtWSe2Qe9oRZIIe/u jcTzgJwpXZt8FtIkwhnlrO1mxqaF9y9O/Tv9154cWEiqK/Qd7LMUgTxGNRwlz56QBZvI PL8SusRrX+D0q0hOhKf/QVdBnUlv8Hzij7sVXS2Lrcc6Y/LJUEUd9YbMfC/bH0vMHld3 y3Zw== Original-Received: by 10.60.12.37 with SMTP id v5mr31264388oeb.25.1343858826633; Wed, 01 Aug 2012 15:07:06 -0700 (PDT) Original-Received: by 10.60.172.11 with HTTP; Wed, 1 Aug 2012 15:07:06 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20120801211745.GA4203@acm.acm> X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13 Precedence: list X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 2) X-Received-From: 140.186.70.43 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.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.bugs:62731 Archived-At: >> > As for c-indent-line-or-region, I have no opinion on that at all. > >> (I'm CC-ing Alan. Hopefully he has an opinion) This is the current >> behavior I observe: >> * If the command has to adjust the indentation of some line(s) in the >> region, the mark is deactivated at the end of the command. >> * Else, the mark is not deactivated. > >> This behavior is definitely annoying for me: when I mark some fragment >> of code and type TAB, what I want is that Emacs revise the indentation >> of code, and correct it if necessary, but in any case, I don't want >> the mark to remain active. > > Have you looked at the code for c-i-l-o-region? At a quick glance, I > can't see where the distinction is made between indentation adjusted and > not adjusted. I don't actually use transient-mark-mode myself, so this > hasn't annoyed me one way or the other. > > Is the distinction there for a reason, or did it just get there by > accident? The defun is only several (as opposed to many) years old, so > the evidence should still be available in the bzr repo. I'm sorry, I (still) don't have enough knowledge of Emacs to delve into such questions. I reported this bug as a mere user, hoping that you (the maintainers), if agree with my reasoning, make the suitable changes to the program. In the case at hand, what I reported is quite simple, I think: from "emacs -Q" (transient mark mode on) visit some C file, select some fragment of code and type TAB. Hopefully you'll see the same behavior as me: * If the code in the region was already well indented, nothing happens and the mark remains active. * Else, the code is indented and the mark is deactivated. What I say is that the mark should be deactivated _always_ at the end of the command, because the "transient" operation (revise the indentation of those lines) is done. This is so obvious to me that I'm surprised of seeing you so hesitant... but well, you decide :) -- Dani Moncayo