From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Oleh Krehel Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Is it time to remove INTERNAL_FIELD? Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2015 15:33:16 +0200 Message-ID: <87a8xz3r6r.fsf@gmail.com> References: <87lhhjuq26.fsf@gmail.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1429796349 26069 80.91.229.3 (23 Apr 2015 13:39:09 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2015 13:39:09 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Stefan Monnier Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Thu Apr 23 15:39:09 2015 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1YlHLQ-0001HZ-JB for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 23 Apr 2015 15:39:08 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:40268 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1YlHLP-0002TU-NV for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 23 Apr 2015 09:39:07 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:40742) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1YlHLJ-0002Pi-PY for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 23 Apr 2015 09:39:02 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1YlHLG-0007OF-IV for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 23 Apr 2015 09:39:01 -0400 Original-Received: from mail-wi0-x22d.google.com ([2a00:1450:400c:c05::22d]:32981) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1YlHLG-0007O9-CE for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 23 Apr 2015 09:38:58 -0400 Original-Received: by wiax7 with SMTP id x7so12853147wia.0 for ; Thu, 23 Apr 2015 06:38:57 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=from:to:cc:subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id :user-agent:mime-version:content-type; bh=cHp7MFmPgCiD0IjRtElX+UF6xvzg7MebwbqLnXRgxpE=; b=WkdItOlFFpwgTIZJgL11zn0sgKPA/YdnbIuzycmOvRQwsKkgwur5YlgrbUhXYUG0+v XLiUIoMycLzjLrcyhRG/SlqAUg5d+6UEt9nNgE70vNsZTEpIwiIiNSTF+tWyiz783CQd WRE7Rw4CKzeNb3B2NMPeDWdhRcnbjU/1er+p/UPRzDsh9ptcGu34fyYP8NZvepf/F8MQ Ne/TnABd7/sUXm3MJirb45VX/8Sn/w35jcoD8f5a/fm2h4302YjcGHYhcwITpCZFOiHN IqBeZOWjIjW/MpvYND7xomqAsGQFqMJTpBt/j4PUiVEVhIB/3cDl1ND4gC34xBcrzxCF Zb3A== X-Received: by 10.195.12.138 with SMTP id eq10mr5332853wjd.65.1429796337739; Thu, 23 Apr 2015 06:38:57 -0700 (PDT) Original-Received: from firefly (dyn069045.nbw.tue.nl. [131.155.69.45]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id be3sm12606538wib.21.2015.04.23.06.38.56 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Thu, 23 Apr 2015 06:38:56 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: (Stefan Monnier's message of "Thu, 23 Apr 2015 09:30:49 -0400") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.5 (gnu/linux) X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Error: Malformed IPv6 address (bad octet value). X-Received-From: 2a00:1450:400c:c05::22d X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:185813 Archived-At: Stefan Monnier writes: >> In an effort to make the mark and mark-active be window-local (like the >> point) and not buffer-local, I've started learning the way that the > > BTW, since our last discussion about it, I'm not sure it's going to be > a good change for everyone: when the mark is used to select a region on > which to operate, it'll usually be preferable for that mark to be > window-local, but for people who use the mark as a simple "remember this > location", they may occasionally by disappointed that it's not shared > among the various windows of a buffer. Surely it will be easy to customize this behavior if I manage to figure out how to do it. > Also, the mark-ring will definitely not want to become window-local, so > having a window-local mark but a buffer-local mark-ring could lead to > further surprises. > Not to say that it would be a bad change, but that it may require > a fair bit of twiddling until everyone's happy with it. Fine, it's worth it for me to get rid of the annoyance. Oleh