From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Alan Mackenzie Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Documentation of transient-mark-mode is sloppy, wrong, and confused. Date: Fri, 29 May 2009 08:58:52 +0000 Message-ID: <20090529085852.GA2793@muc.de> References: <20090528122927.GA2175@muc.de> <87fxepf9s8.fsf@cyd.mit.edu> <20090528201529.GA4605@muc.de> <87bppdx8c0.fsf@cyd.mit.edu> <20090528230359.GA1474@muc.de> <4A1F7706.80501@online.de> <878wkgco3b.fsf@uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1243587496 7906 80.91.229.12 (29 May 2009 08:58:16 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 29 May 2009 08:58:16 +0000 (UTC) Cc: Kevin Rodgers , Andreas Roehler , emacs-devel@gnu.org To: "Stephen J. Turnbull" Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Fri May 29 10:58:12 2009 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1M9xum-00015u-0r for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 29 May 2009 10:58:12 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:37212 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1M9xul-0008Lf-7j for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 29 May 2009 04:58:11 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1M9xuf-0008LS-TA for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 29 May 2009 04:58:05 -0400 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1M9xua-0008L0-St for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 29 May 2009 04:58:04 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=37221 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1M9xua-0008Kx-Pm for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 29 May 2009 04:58:00 -0400 Original-Received: from colin.muc.de ([193.149.48.1]:4582 helo=mail.muc.de) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS-1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1M9xua-0003UG-4G for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 29 May 2009 04:58:00 -0400 Original-Received: (qmail 31547 invoked by uid 3782); 29 May 2009 08:57:58 -0000 Original-Received: from acm.muc.de (pD9E514E9.dip.t-dialin.net [217.229.20.233]) by colin2.muc.de (tmda-ofmipd) with ESMTP; Fri, 29 May 2009 10:57:55 +0200 Original-Received: (qmail 3588 invoked by uid 1000); 29 May 2009 08:58:52 -0000 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <878wkgco3b.fsf@uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.9i X-Delivery-Agent: TMDA/1.1.5 (Fettercairn) X-Primary-Address: acm@muc.de X-detected-operating-system: by monty-python.gnu.org: FreeBSD 4.6-4.9 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:111185 Archived-At: Hi, Stephen! On Fri, May 29, 2009 at 05:25:44PM +0900, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote: > Andreas Roehler writes: > > 1) region-exists-p > > 2) region-has-extent > Please don't use this term this way. It would be very confusing for > XEmacs. > It's not clear to me why anybody cares about whether the region has > non-zero length or not, anyway. Obviously the situation was too simple and obvious, so it was necessary to introduce some complication to make people sit up and think. I'm speculating here: When a region has zero length, it's difficult to see the highlighting on it. Because it "looks" as thought the region is not "active", it's possibly better to handle user commands as though it weren't "active". Maybe. > It seems to me that `region-exists-p' and `region-active-p' as used in > XEmacs would be sufficient. Does XEmacs have a definition of an "active region"? ;-) > > 3) region-is-visible > I don't understand what Alan's problem with "active regions" is. As > I've pointed out in the past, although "receptive" might be a better > term, usages like "active receptor" (in biochemistry) are very common. > If Alan is essentially unique in this objection, and he seems to be > (sorry, Alan!) then I see no need to cater to him. No problem! But that's not my gripe here. (My objection to using words like "active" to describe a state which isn't "being an agent" is that such loose usage is liable to lead to confusion. Here, it has manifestly lead to massive confusion.) My problem is that the technical word "active" is used without being defined. I surely can't be the only Emacs user who feels patronised and insulted when manuals talk down at me by using fancy words without saying what they mean. Often, when manual authors do this, it is because they themselves don't know what their fancy word means either, as is the case here. "But EVERYBODY know what \"active\" means!" just won't do. -- Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).