Re: keymap in yank-excluded-properties

[storm@cua.dk (Kim F. Storm)]

Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org> writes:

> What's correct to do for yanking a table?  Yanking the whole table
> ought to preserve its properties so that the table still functions as
> one.  Yanking a part of the table which can act as a complete table in
> itself should also do that.  However, yanking some of the text within
> the table, which is less than a whole table entry, should forget that
> it came from a table and treat it like any ordinary text.
> 
> Does that make sense to you?

Yes, it makes a lot of sense to me.

The decision what to do must be taken when doing the yank (or
yank-rectangle), rather than the kill or copy, as there just too many
ways to get the (partial) table into the kill-ring, so the only place
where it makes sense to determine whether "the thing" is really a
table is when we yank it.

>   If so, can you look for a design to
> achieve those results?

The design must provide for easily recognizing a table as a table.

It should not recognize something which might look like a table if
that wasn't actually part of a table before

It should recognize partial, but still valid tables, as tables.


I still think that my proposal for a yank-function text property (set
on the original table text, and used by yank and yank-rectangle to do
the yank) would do be a simple, yet powerful approach, as it would use
automatically copy that property to the kill-ring, so there is nothing
we need to add to basic functionality to achieve this.

I think the yank-function property should be removed from the inserted
text before yank calls that function; if necessary, that function is
responsible for adding the yank-function property again if that makes
sense.


-- 
Kim F. Storm <storm@cua.dk> http://www.cua.dk