From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: hw Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: delete-selection-mode as default Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2018 06:16:24 +0200 Organization: my virtual residence Message-ID: <87d0tihxzw.fsf@toy.adminart.net> References: <83k1nxvm5j.fsf@gnu.org> <87sh2ih0bp.fsf@fastmail.fm> <770f48a8-664a-40ae-8e03-19f6aad248b6@default> <20180910181615.GA4829@ACM> <874lev3bq4.fsf@toy.adminart.net> <20180912131602.GA5582@ACM> NNTP-Posting-Host: blaine.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: blaine.gmane.org 1536812264 13897 195.159.176.226 (13 Sep 2018 04:17:44 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@blaine.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2018 04:17:44 +0000 (UTC) User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/27.0.50 (gnu/linux) Cc: spacibba@aol.com, Joost Kremers , Noam Postavsky , emacs-devel@gnu.org, Eli Zaretskii , Drew Adams , phillip.lord@russet.org.uk To: Alan Mackenzie Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Thu Sep 13 06:17:39 2018 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by blaine.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1g0J4U-0003UG-Md for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 13 Sep 2018 06:17:39 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:40271 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1g0J6b-0006tN-3t for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 13 Sep 2018 00:19:49 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:43104) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1g0J4S-0005oQ-1m for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 13 Sep 2018 00:17:37 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1g0J4Q-0005dA-Q7 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 13 Sep 2018 00:17:35 -0400 Original-Received: from mo6-p02-ob.smtp.rzone.de ([2a01:238:20a:202:5302::2]:27286) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1g0J4P-0005aI-2I; Thu, 13 Sep 2018 00:17:33 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; t=1536812251; s=strato-dkim-0002; d=adminart.net; h=References:Message-ID:Date:In-Reply-To:Subject:Cc:To:From: X-RZG-CLASS-ID:X-RZG-AUTH:From:Subject:Sender; bh=L8Q8zF7YKqlYosykJxVAPDsIK4ry0GaXzf4mfBnA4XA=; b=euL2NkPxRvu37xSHDj76rNVxl9bD2hdK8ugtlIYIe6yzhbwjEY1+d+f7TFjWCIhaWI AwnoeynR3dsYDs8qhlKyfOXk/U7V/aNFniFL+pjHui6UQN2245r7XMSuY5eaRs8m0rm1 KmN0eRjDPV6KRi6zesdFd9dalg3d3DrW7m4ZK/+9yMmuNR4Ak9nLuo/x70NP/XmagLGE nRSMEaEGiB5wqj2ggCj/NLYMGaRNTDBJ5IqMCJi52jZ86JjJ3PN0B00JkrM6dBOP8sx7 XvTaLAAg4nUkePR881E0vxrZ5sLbWEdH4t0VVdDz5mSV2pfepplMeEsGBsgX+ZDtFyn3 pknQ== X-RZG-AUTH: ":O2kGeEG7b/pS1FS4THaxjVF9w0vVgfQ9xGcjwO5WMRo5c+h5ceMqQWZ3yrBp+AVdIIwXjneEe9k=" X-RZG-CLASS-ID: mo00 Original-Received: from himinbjorg.adminart.net by smtp.strato.de (RZmta 44.0 DYNA|AUTH) with ESMTPSA id e03b99u8D4HLSZU (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (curve secp521r1 with 521 ECDH bits, eq. 15360 bits RSA)) (Client did not present a certificate); Thu, 13 Sep 2018 06:17:21 +0200 (CEST) Original-Received: from toy.adminart.net ([192.168.3.55]) by himinbjorg.adminart.net with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1g0J4C-0001hL-Pd; Thu, 13 Sep 2018 06:17:20 +0200 In-Reply-To: <20180912131602.GA5582@ACM> (Alan Mackenzie's message of "Wed, 12 Sep 2018 13:16:02 +0000") X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] X-Received-From: 2a01:238:20a:202:5302::2 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.21 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" Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:229732 Archived-At: Alan Mackenzie writes: > Hello, hw. > > On Wed, Sep 12, 2018 at 00:34:11 +0200, hw wrote: >> Drew Adams writes: > >> Highlighting regions should be separated from whether they are active >> or not, and I don't want hidden regions, either. > > I do. I want point and mark, and the region between them to be regarded > as "the" region. That's it. I currently (almost) have that option. How do I get the region highlighted so I can see where it is? >> Currently even when a region is not active (it is a hidden region >> because it is not highlighted), you can do something with it, so users >> always get an "active" region even when they don't want one. It's only >> a bit less active than it is when it is highlighted. > > As I've pointed out several times in the distant past, the terminology > used for things in this part of Emacs is thoroughly suboptimal. A region > is never "active"; it never does anything, it is never an agent. For > example. Maybe "workable" is a better term. >> > [...] >> > I suspect that things are very different for you, and I >> > suspect it is because of `C-x C-x' activating the region >> > even though you have no intention of acting on it. > >> Exchanging point and mark is a purely navigational thing, and somehow >> the activation and deactivation of hidden(!) regions .... > > There's exactly one region, except when there's none (before the mark has > been set in a buffer). There shouldn't be one unless it's highlighted. If highlighted, it depends on how you consider it: multiple regions, or still one region which is non-consecutive. >> .... which may have been modified because point may have moved since a >> region was selected last time(!) has been mixed into that. That is ill >> advised. > > No, it's central and essential to how Emacs works. There is ONE region, > the part of the buffer between mark and point. Let's not muck around > with this. Then how come I can't even see where the mark is, let alone the region? Why is that not displayed? >> > I feel like region activation by `C-x C-x' was maybe foisted >> > on people who never wanted or expected to do anything >> > with an active region. > >> Do you mean they would rather do things with hidden regions? I never >> want to do that. > > I do. I don't want my region highlighted, ever. Why not? When highlighting screws up your syntax highlighting, maybe a different way of highlighting could help. Even only marking the fringes of lines that are selected would be better than nothing. How do you limit functions to a part of a buffer when you do not use transient-mark-mode? >> Right, so why not separate navigational functions from highlighting and >> regions? > >> Use point and mark purely for navigation, set a selection-start-marker >> with C-spc and a selection-end-marker with another C-spc (or whatever >> key binding is appropriate for it). The region is between these >> markers, and you can have multiple regions in the same buffer. Do >> something with a region, and its markers are forgotten unless you use a >> prefix. Have a key binding to jump around between the regions in a >> buffer, and you can tell Emacs with which of them you want to do >> something by moving point into it. If you want to do the same thing >> with multiple regions, move point into one after another and make them >> "sticky" for operation, or mark them right after selecting them. > >> That might make a lot of things much simpler, and we wouldn't have to >> feel uneasy about the hidden regions all the time. > > Simpler? You've got to be kidding! Who really wants to have several > regions, and why? I think the times one would want several regions would > be so rare as to be pure unjustified complexity. One reason is visual indication. I can set a register or a bookmark in a buffer and never see it, or I can write 'FIXME:' comments which is silly when I'm working on something so that it's gona be fixed anyway, and hard to see --- or I could highlight the lines I'm concerned about and need to look into. If I could highlight parts, I could go through the source and read it, which I do anyway, highlight the relevant places and have it much easier to move around and to find things and not overlook something. It could be a big relieve because I don't need to remember so much all at the same time because I could just see it highlighted. If it wouldn't screw up regions and do what ever hidden stuff, I might even use the mark for navigation, so navigating would be easier in two ways. >> > [...] >> > There you go. That's probably the right thing to do for >> > someone who doesn't want d-s-m behavior. But then >> > do you have to monkey around with temporary t-m-m, >> > or do you just not bother, ever, with having an active >> > region? I'm guessing the latter. > >> It can make it difficult to do things supposed to be limited to a >> region. I might disable t-m-m if I could see what I have selected with >> it disabled and monkey. > > Monkey? ... around with temporary t-m-m to limit functions to selections. > One of the uses of C-x C-x is to check what is currently in the region. > Typically, you'd type it twice, to get back to your starting point. Why would I? >> I never use C-x C-x, so it doesn't make a difference otherwise, which >> leaves nothing but disadvantages to having t-m-m disabled. > > There are many advantages to having transient-mark-mode disabled: > primarily simplicity, and the severe reduction in the modal behaviour (in > the sense of key sequences doing different things in things like vi's > insert mode and command mode). And I'm not happy having my font-locking > splatted by the region's highlighting. Any simplicity here is no more than a deceptive apparition. It's not like I like transient-mark-mode, it's only the least evil. The concept of "the" region and having it all messed up with each other is what's really evil. I want my selection highlighted. I'd also need to have regions and selections decoupled from the navigation. There's no sense in "the" region. I don't need a region to navigate. I don't need a region for a selection. I need to navigate and to select, independently of each other, and I especially don't need "the" lurking hidden region to screw things up for me because it's coupled to everything. > But everybody's different here, with different preferences, likes, hates. > It's a mistake (which I've made quite a few times) to assume that > "obvious" options in Emacs actually are obvious. Is there anything obvious about Emacs? :)