From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: "Drew Adams" Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.bugs Subject: bug#11364: [debbugs-tracker] Processed: severity 11364 wishlist Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2012 06:52:52 -0700 Message-ID: References: <87sjd4lys4.fsf@gnu.org><38C346B84BFA43C998DAA00564D4CF2B@us.oracle.com><87liiuke7g.fsf@gnu.org><03B2AA2026DA436E892FA43E858B0F66@us.oracle.com><83F7E58F698E45CFBCAFF3F713A1DE06@us.oracle.com> <87a9z5a3vl.fsf@gnu.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1342101230 9977 80.91.229.3 (12 Jul 2012 13:53:50 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2012 13:53:50 +0000 (UTC) Cc: 11364@debbugs.gnu.org To: "'Chong Yidong'" Original-X-From: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Thu Jul 12 15:53:49 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 1SpJpw-00029E-JI for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Thu, 12 Jul 2012 15:53:44 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:49244 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1SpJpv-0001mP-U8 for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Thu, 12 Jul 2012 09:53:43 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:43021) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1SpJpm-0001lv-Nh for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Thu, 12 Jul 2012 09:53:42 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1SpJpi-0003HR-IJ for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Thu, 12 Jul 2012 09:53:34 -0400 Original-Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.43]:54682) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1SpJpi-0003HN-Eg for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Thu, 12 Jul 2012 09:53:30 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1SpJv4-0003nw-3L for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Thu, 12 Jul 2012 09:59:02 -0400 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Resent-From: "Drew Adams" Original-Sender: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2012 13:59:02 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 11364 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs X-GNU-PR-Keywords: Original-Received: via spool by 11364-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B11364.134210151514593 (code B ref 11364); Thu, 12 Jul 2012 13:59:02 +0000 Original-Received: (at 11364) by debbugs.gnu.org; 12 Jul 2012 13:58:35 +0000 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:35995 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1SpJuc-0003nI-2N for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 12 Jul 2012 09:58:35 -0400 Original-Received: from acsinet15.oracle.com ([141.146.126.227]:44307) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1SpJuY-0003nA-VY for 11364@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 12 Jul 2012 09:58:32 -0400 Original-Received: from acsinet22.oracle.com (acsinet22.oracle.com [141.146.126.238]) by acsinet15.oracle.com (Sentrion-MTA-4.2.2/Sentrion-MTA-4.2.2) with ESMTP id q6CDquHc025323 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Thu, 12 Jul 2012 13:52:57 GMT Original-Received: from acsmt357.oracle.com (acsmt357.oracle.com [141.146.40.157]) by acsinet22.oracle.com (8.14.4+Sun/8.14.4) with ESMTP id q6CDquPr007832 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Thu, 12 Jul 2012 13:52:56 GMT Original-Received: from abhmt105.oracle.com (abhmt105.oracle.com [141.146.116.57]) by acsmt357.oracle.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id q6CDqupu010061; Thu, 12 Jul 2012 08:52:56 -0500 Original-Received: from dradamslap1 (/10.159.186.197) by default (Oracle Beehive Gateway v4.0) with ESMTP ; Thu, 12 Jul 2012 06:52:55 -0700 X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11 In-Reply-To: <87a9z5a3vl.fsf@gnu.org> Thread-Index: Ac1f98IAXc4UZgssS16KPLpPBnriggANyGvw X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.6157 X-Source-IP: acsinet22.oracle.com [141.146.126.238] 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:61853 Archived-At: >> M-x delete-selection-mode ; turn it on >> >> Double click a word, sexp, line, or what have you. Or select >> the region some other way. The point is to get an active region. >> >> Use `left', `right', `up', or `down' cursor keys (or `C-f' >> etc. if you prefer). The region stays active and is extended >> (or restricted). >> >> This useful, standard Emacs feature was lost starting with >> Emacs 23. Now, moving the cursor deactivates the region. >> It should not, at least not in `delete-selection-mode'. > > The behavior of Emacs 22 is an unintended and (AFAICT) undocumented > consequence of the delete-selection-mode implementation---basically a > bug, since it had nothing to do with deleting selections. We might > eventually re-implement this as an optional behavior, but > that would be a new feature (it will certainly not be the default > behavior, since it is very non-standard for graphical applications). > > So I do not regard this as a regression, or even a bug. I'm > setting the severity to wishlist, because there are better things > to work on. Do not play with the severity---that will not increase > the likelihood of this feature being implemented. You are trying to rewrite history. Simply stating something does not make it true. You claimed that this was NEVER the behavior in Emacs. Now you admit OK, it existed in Emacs 22, but that was just a fluke, not intended. On what basis do you claim that? None given, except that there was no specific mention of this in the doc. The doc for `delete-selection' mode is minimal. Have you found anything in the doc that says that this behavior was NOT intended? People have been using `delete-selection-mode' for decades. Do you have ANY evidence that anyone thought that the way it behaved in this regard was a BUG? Quite the contrary - users have been taking advantage of this useful feature. And a bug was filed when you broke it. In fact, this has been the behavior not just in Emacs 22 but in ALL prior Emacs versions as well (since `delete-selection-mode' was added). And there is zero evidence that this behavior was in any way a mistake, bug, or unintended. You give no argument to support your claims. You play on words, saying that because the traditional behavior "had nothing to do with deleting selections" it was a bug. Shame. Delete-selection mode is not and has never been only about "deleting selections". Do you even use `delete-selection-mode'? I'd guess not, since you had no idea that you broke this feature. Did you take a poll of users of `delete-selection-mode' before breaking it? Or before retroactively deciding now that its behavior was a bug that was happily "fixed" by your change that unknowingly broke it? Delete-selection mode is not, and was never intended to be, limited to what might be "standard for graphical applications", any more than the Emacs mouse was intended to be limited to what is "standard for graphical applications". Emacs has always felt free to offer more (or less) than what might currently be "standard" elsewhere. The aim has never been to limit Emacs to what is "standard for graphical applications". Richard has been very clear about this from the beginning. We use standards when, and to the degree that, they are appropriate for Emacs; they do not use us. Not to mention that similar behavior is and has always been _standard for Emacs_ in its keyboard handling of the region. You can still set mark and extend/restrict the active region by hitting cursor keys, thank goodness. At least you broke this Emacs standard behavior only for the case where the region was made active by the mouse, in delete-selection mode. Wrt your reclassification: The definition given by GNU for "wishlist" severity is this: "for any feature request, and also for any bugs that are very difficult to fix due to major design considerations" This is not a feature request, no matter what word games you play. It is a request to restore the traditional behavior, which you inadvertently broke. Inadvertently? Yes, since by your own admission you had no idea that you broke it. You even claimed that the traditional behavior never existed. And you have made no argument that this is "very difficult to fix due to major design considerations". You are rewriting history, and apparently trying to redefine "wishlist" as well. Shame.