From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Stefan Monnier Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.bugs Subject: bug#13523: 24.2.92; [regression] mark-active Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2013 09:47:36 -0500 Message-ID: References: NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1359643706 2806 80.91.229.3 (31 Jan 2013 14:48:26 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2013 14:48:26 +0000 (UTC) Cc: 13523@debbugs.gnu.org, Chong Yidong To: Glenn Morris Original-X-From: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Thu Jan 31 15:48:45 2013 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 1U0vRT-0007zo-GM for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Thu, 31 Jan 2013 15:48:43 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:35086 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1U0vRB-0003aK-GF for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Thu, 31 Jan 2013 09:48:25 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:43844) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1U0vR8-0003a1-2O for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Thu, 31 Jan 2013 09:48:23 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1U0vR6-0003iR-H6 for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Thu, 31 Jan 2013 09:48:21 -0500 Original-Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.43]:51660) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1U0vR6-0003iK-Dp for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Thu, 31 Jan 2013 09:48:20 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1U0vRl-00005X-N0 for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Thu, 31 Jan 2013 09:49:01 -0500 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Resent-From: Stefan Monnier Original-Sender: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2013 14:49:01 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 13523 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs X-GNU-PR-Keywords: confirmed help Original-Received: via spool by 13523-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B13523.1359643704300 (code B ref 13523); Thu, 31 Jan 2013 14:49:01 +0000 Original-Received: (at 13523) by debbugs.gnu.org; 31 Jan 2013 14:48:24 +0000 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:57124 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1U0vR9-0008WS-If for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 31 Jan 2013 09:48:24 -0500 Original-Received: from pruche.dit.umontreal.ca ([132.204.246.22]:49849) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1U0vR6-0008WI-0x for 13523@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 31 Jan 2013 09:48:21 -0500 Original-Received: from faina.iro.umontreal.ca (lechon.iro.umontreal.ca [132.204.27.242]) by pruche.dit.umontreal.ca (8.14.1/8.14.1) with ESMTP id r0VElaOc020238; Thu, 31 Jan 2013 09:47:36 -0500 Original-Received: by faina.iro.umontreal.ca (Postfix, from userid 20848) id 74F7EB4182; Thu, 31 Jan 2013 09:47:36 -0500 (EST) In-Reply-To: (Glenn Morris's message of "Wed, 30 Jan 2013 22:34:36 -0500") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.3.50 (gnu/linux) X-NAI-Spam-Flag: NO X-NAI-Spam-Threshold: 5 X-NAI-Spam-Score: 0 X-NAI-Spam-Rules: 1 Rules triggered RV4478=0 X-NAI-Spam-Version: 2.2.0.9309 : core <4478> : streams <898109> : uri <1332930> 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.x 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:70526 Archived-At: >>> Can we turn the test around, so that rather than saying "deactivate the >>> mark if the final event was mouse-set-point or mouse-set-region", we say >>> "deactivate the mark unless the final event was X or Y"? >>> (I don't know what X or Y are, something related to multi-clicks I guess.) >> Can someone point out why the patch below wouldn't work? > Won't it break dragging to select a region and activate the mark? I don't think so, because the next command (the one bound to the up-event) should/will activate the mark (since the next event should be a drag-mouse-1). And in my tests, it seems to work just fine, indeed. > Bearing that in mind, this seems odd: > (> (event-click-count event) 0) > since surely event-click-count is always >= 1? Indeed even (event-click-count ?a) returns 1, so the test seems broken. Stefan