Re: position on changing defaults?

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

Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org> writes:

>     > That is a separate feature, and a major change in Emacs's region
>     > mechanism.  It may be good, but it calls for careful discussion and
>     > thought.  We should not adopt such a change because it came along
>     > with some other feature.
>
>     Unless you explicitly hit C-RET, you'll never notice it's there.
>
> We are miscommunicating.  I am saying it is a major change in Emacs's
> region mechanism.  

I don't see _any_ change in Emacs' region mechanism.

I _do_ see a major _supplement_ in Emacs' rectangle mechanism.

>                    You're saying the change is not incompatible.  Ok,
> but it is still a major change.  It would require major changes in the
> Emacs manual.

Of course, if we promote the C-RET method of marking a rectangle as the
default method, manual needs changes.

Also, it may seem logical to have standard commands work in specific
ways depending on whehter no mark is active, the regions is active, or
a rectangle-region is active.  

E.g. M-u to upcase word, region, or rectangle,
     C-w to kill region or rectangle depending on what is marked,
     C-y to yank a rectangle if the last kill was a rectangle, etc.

That's basically what CUA-mode does, in addition to highlighting the
rectagle - and the primary reason why the rectangle support and global-mark
support is tied into CUA mode in the first place.  

So if the basic commands are rewritten to behave correctly in the
presense of a rectangle, then you can easily split apart CUA's
shift-region and CUA's rectangle stuff.

> I think we should postpone discussion of rectangle selection until the
> matter of shift motion is entirely finished with in one way or another.


Ok, they are not really related anyway...

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