From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: kai.grossjohann@gmx.net (=?iso-8859-1?q?Kai_Gro=DFjohann?=) Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Various simple.el patches Date: Fri, 23 May 2003 21:24:04 +0200 Organization: University of Duisburg, Germany Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+emacs-devel=quimby.gnus.org@gnu.org Message-ID: <84vfw1h3fv.fsf@lucy.is.informatik.uni-duisburg.de> References: <200305132031.h4DKVp58013718@rum.cs.yale.edu> <84llx9hhwp.fsf@lucy.is.informatik.uni-duisburg.de> <20030514124245.GA24487@gnu.org> <843cjhtytp.fsf@lucy.is.informatik.uni-duisburg.de> <20030514144839.GA6241@gnu.org> <844r3xr0ar.fsf@lucy.is.informatik.uni-duisburg.de> <84fznfzb9t.fsf@lucy.is.informatik.uni-duisburg.de> <84k7co464e.fsf@lucy.is.informatik.uni-duisburg.de> <200305220252.h4M2q9W10068@eel.dms.auburn.edu> <200305230352.h4N3qj211239@eel.dms.auburn.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: main.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: main.gmane.org 1053718024 6876 80.91.224.249 (23 May 2003 19:27:04 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@main.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 23 May 2003 19:27:04 +0000 (UTC) Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+emacs-devel=quimby.gnus.org@gnu.org Fri May 23 21:27:01 2003 Return-path: Original-Received: from quimby.gnus.org ([80.91.224.244]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 19JIB0-0001hy-00 for ; Fri, 23 May 2003 21:26:02 +0200 Original-Received: from monty-python.gnu.org ([199.232.76.173]) by quimby.gnus.org with esmtp (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian)) id 19JIMt-0005rJ-00 for ; Fri, 23 May 2003 21:38:19 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19JICg-0006Xw-R6 for emacs-devel@quimby.gnus.org; Fri, 23 May 2003 15:27:46 -0400 Original-Received: from list by monty-python.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.20) id 19JIBp-0006RS-QU for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 23 May 2003 15:26:53 -0400 Original-Received: from mail by monty-python.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.20) id 19JIBY-00061D-Nj for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 23 May 2003 15:26:37 -0400 Original-Received: from main.gmane.org ([80.91.224.249]) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19JIAt-0005Lx-9n for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 23 May 2003 15:25:55 -0400 Original-Received: from list by main.gmane.org with local (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 19JI8B-0001Ul-00 for ; Fri, 23 May 2003 21:23:07 +0200 Mail-Followup-To: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ Original-To: emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-Received: from news by main.gmane.org with local (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 19JI7V-0001S4-00 for ; Fri, 23 May 2003 21:22:25 +0200 Original-Lines: 32 Original-X-Complaints-To: usenet@main.gmane.org Mail-Copies-To: never User-Agent: Gnus/5.1003 (Gnus v5.10.3) Emacs/21.3.50 (gnu/linux) Cancel-Lock: sha1:ZHZLCa36BMHRr+Cigl1tyEJAYJQ= X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1b5 Precedence: list List-Id: Emacs development discussions. List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+emacs-devel=quimby.gnus.org@gnu.org Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:14152 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.devel:14152 Luc Teirlinck writes: > The following version of kill-whole-line should work OK with the > kill-ring, including read-only buffers, and with invisible text. Nice. The invisible text becomes visible again. But that's the same with C-k. I presume it's intended to behave like this. When hitting C-u -2 S-, do people expect to kill the current line, plus the previous line? Or do people expect to delete the previous two lines, excluding the current line? The first would be similar to C-e C-u -1 C-k. The second would be similar to C-a C-u -2 C-k. I tend towards the first behavior. It's interesting that C-k with a negative arg kills more than a C-k with a positive arg. If I'm in the middle of a line and do C-u 1 C-k, then I'll kill half a line. But if I do C-u -1 C-k, then I'll kill one-and-a-half lines! This is quite unexpected. C-k is similar to C-@ C-e C-w. C-u 1 C-k is similar to C-@ C-e C-f C-w. C-u 0 C-k is similar to C-@ C-a C-w. By analogy, I'd expect C-u -1 C-k to be similar to C-@ C-a C-b C-w. But it is like C-@ C-a C-p C-w. What do people think? -- This line is not blank.