* Re: Emacs-diffs Digest, Vol 4, Issue 70
[not found] ` <E18xHK6-0002Ib-00@fencepost.gnu.org>
@ 2003-03-24 12:41 ` Kim F. Storm
2003-03-26 2:42 ` Richard Stallman
0 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread
From: Kim F. Storm @ 2003-03-24 12:41 UTC (permalink / raw)
Cc: emacs-devel
Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org> writes:
> + * simple.el (set-mark-command): Doc fixes.
> + Allow pop-global-mark to be repeated with C-x C-SPC C-SPC...
>
> I think that is a bad idea. Peculiar repetitions like this can
> be useful, but they also are prone to causing surprises.
> So we should implement them only when really really important.
> I don't think this one is important enough.
>
> Would you please take it out?
I added this to make it analogue to C-u C-SPC C-SPC ... (which I
find is a wast improvement over the old C-u C-SPC C-u C-SPC ...
method).
The only problem with the new behaviour is if the user wants to set
the mark immediately after C-x C-SPC (I'd think that is quite rare),
but that case is not different from the situation where you would want
to set the mark immediately after doing C-u C-SPC C-SPC ...
So I really don't see why this is a bad idea, as I (and others)
actually find the difference in behaviour rather confusing, and think
the new method C-x C-SPC C-SPC... is a wast improvement over the old
C-x C-SPC C-x C-SPC... like it is for C-u C-SPC ...
In any case, I have now reverted the patch, so the old behaviour is
now the default; however, the IMO improved behaviour can still be
selected with a new user option `pop-global-mark-quick-repeat'.
--
Kim F. Storm <storm@cua.dk> http://www.cua.dk
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread* Re: Emacs-diffs Digest, Vol 4, Issue 70
2003-03-24 12:41 ` Emacs-diffs Digest, Vol 4, Issue 70 Kim F. Storm
@ 2003-03-26 2:42 ` Richard Stallman
2003-03-28 15:06 ` Kim F. Storm
0 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread
From: Richard Stallman @ 2003-03-26 2:42 UTC (permalink / raw)
Cc: emacs-devel
I added this to make it analogue to C-u C-SPC C-SPC ... (which I
find is a wast improvement over the old C-u C-SPC C-u C-SPC ...
method).
Hmm. In that case, maybe it is a good feature.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread* Re: Emacs-diffs Digest, Vol 4, Issue 70
2003-03-26 2:42 ` Richard Stallman
@ 2003-03-28 15:06 ` Kim F. Storm
2003-03-29 18:39 ` Richard Stallman
0 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread
From: Kim F. Storm @ 2003-03-28 15:06 UTC (permalink / raw)
Cc: emacs-devel
Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org> writes:
> I added this to make it analogue to C-u C-SPC C-SPC ... (which I
> find is a wast improvement over the old C-u C-SPC C-u C-SPC ...
> method).
>
> Hmm. In that case, maybe it is a good feature.
I see two possibilities:
* I revert my latest patch (which makes this a customize option),
and just have the new behaviour .
* I change the default for the customize option to enable the new
behaviour.
--
Kim F. Storm <storm@cua.dk> http://www.cua.dk
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: Emacs-diffs Digest, Vol 4, Issue 70
2003-03-28 15:06 ` Kim F. Storm
@ 2003-03-29 18:39 ` Richard Stallman
2003-03-31 22:48 ` Kim F. Storm
0 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread
From: Richard Stallman @ 2003-03-29 18:39 UTC (permalink / raw)
Cc: emacs-devel
* I revert my latest patch (which makes this a customize option),
and just have the new behaviour .
I think that is better. I don't see the sense in having an option
for one and not for the other. Perhaps it would be good to have
an option to control both at once; but if nobody is complaining,
we may as well not bother.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread* Re: Emacs-diffs Digest, Vol 4, Issue 70
2003-03-29 18:39 ` Richard Stallman
@ 2003-03-31 22:48 ` Kim F. Storm
0 siblings, 0 replies; 5+ messages in thread
From: Kim F. Storm @ 2003-03-31 22:48 UTC (permalink / raw)
Cc: emacs-devel
Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org> writes:
> * I revert my latest patch (which makes this a customize option),
> and just have the new behaviour .
>
> I think that is better. I don't see the sense in having an option
> for one and not for the other. Perhaps it would be good to have
> an option to control both at once; but if nobody is complaining,
> we may as well not bother.
So far, I have only received (very) positive feedback for the new C-u
C-SPC C-SPC... functionality, and I don't see why anyone would like to
turn it off.
I would expect the C-x C-SPC C-SPC will be received equally positive
by the users...
I have reverted the patch and removed the option to turn off the new
behaviour.
--
Kim F. Storm <storm@cua.dk> http://www.cua.dk
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2003-03-31 22:48 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
[not found] <E18wWjN-00038Q-01@monty-python.gnu.org>
[not found] ` <E18xHK6-0002Ib-00@fencepost.gnu.org>
2003-03-24 12:41 ` Emacs-diffs Digest, Vol 4, Issue 70 Kim F. Storm
2003-03-26 2:42 ` Richard Stallman
2003-03-28 15:06 ` Kim F. Storm
2003-03-29 18:39 ` Richard Stallman
2003-03-31 22:48 ` Kim F. Storm
Code repositories for project(s) associated with this public inbox
https://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/emacs.git
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).