RE: Updated proposal for DEL to delete active region

["Drew Adams" <drew.adams@oracle.com>]

> > So we now break any existing code that counts on `delete-char'
> > or `delete-backward-char' being key-bound.  In particular, 
> > customizations (e.g. key remappings) involving those commands
> > no longer work.
> 
> Yes, this is a clear downside.

I'm glad we agree on that.

> > So instead of having one such var per command (bad), or one var
> > for all such commands (bad), or using a property on a command 
> > symbol such as delsel does (good), we now have two new commands
> > whose implementations hard-code this feature (bad).  The new
> > commands and the new option hard-code each other.
> 
> First, the goal is not to replace delete-selection mode.  It's to
> eliminate the special-case handling of mouse selections

Yes, I know.  And I agree with that initiative.
I was against that special case from the beginning.

I think you are going beyond mouse-selection in the proposed change, however.

> and make active selections behave more consistently.

(I'm not sure what that means, so I can't speak to it.)

> Second, a huge number of commands already hard-code specific
> behavior when Transient Mark mode is active.  That's the point
> of Transient Mark mode.

That might be, but I don't think it's the same kind of behavior.  That
`query-replace' might behave differently depending on whether there is an active
region is one thing.  That doesn't affect basic editing commands and their
traditional keys.  When you replace the bindings of the basic character-deletion
commands it can affect any mode or user code that remaps those commands.

I didn't even mention that the proposal changes the behavior of
`delete-backward-char'.  I didn't notice that part of the proposal at first
reading.  IIUC, That would break any code (or interactive use) that invokes
`delete-backward-char' and expects it to untabify.

Can we not please find some other way to simply "eliminate the special-case
handling of mouse selections"?  What about going back to the code that was there
before that feature was added?