From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Chad Brown Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: C-d deleting region considered harmful Date: Tue, 21 Sep 2010 12:12:28 -0700 Message-ID: References: <87eicrx1ls.fsf@catnip.gol.com> <4C94E03D.8090002@gmail.com> <87fwx699pc.fsf@catnip.gol.com> <83tylmyclx.fsf@gnu.org> <4C961787.3090907@gmail.com> <878w2xsigj.fsf@gmail.com> <87zkvd5hwa.fsf@catnip.gol.com> <87pqw752mu.fsf@catnip.gol.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1081) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1285096375 8843 80.91.229.12 (21 Sep 2010 19:12:55 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 21 Sep 2010 19:12:55 +0000 (UTC) To: Emacs-Devel devel Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Tue Sep 21 21:12:54 2010 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Oy8Gr-00013g-M5 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 21 Sep 2010 21:12:53 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:35915 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Oy8Gq-0003jQ-IS for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 21 Sep 2010 15:12:52 -0400 Original-Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=37402 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Oy8Gi-0003ev-Ma for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 21 Sep 2010 15:12:45 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Oy8Gh-0003eT-9i for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 21 Sep 2010 15:12:44 -0400 Original-Received: from dmz-mailsec-scanner-8.mit.edu ([18.7.68.37]:47549) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Oy8Gh-0003eN-87 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 21 Sep 2010 15:12:43 -0400 X-AuditID: 12074425-b7cccae000005f17-1e-4c99039c53dc Original-Received: from mailhub-auth-3.mit.edu ( [18.9.21.43]) by dmz-mailsec-scanner-8.mit.edu (Symantec Brightmail Gateway) with SMTP id D9.D2.24343.C93099C4; Tue, 21 Sep 2010 15:12:29 -0400 (EDT) Original-Received: from outgoing.mit.edu (OUTGOING-AUTH.MIT.EDU [18.7.22.103]) by mailhub-auth-3.mit.edu (8.13.8/8.9.2) with ESMTP id o8LJCfoK021991 for ; Tue, 21 Sep 2010 15:12:42 -0400 Original-Received: from [10.0.1.194] (c-71-231-113-235.hsd1.wa.comcast.net [71.231.113.235]) (authenticated bits=0) (User authenticated as yandros@ATHENA.MIT.EDU) by outgoing.mit.edu (8.13.6/8.12.4) with ESMTP id o8LJCWTu004601 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT) for ; Tue, 21 Sep 2010 15:12:34 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: <87pqw752mu.fsf@catnip.gol.com> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1081) X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAARYGOcM= X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 2) X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:130585 Archived-At: On Sep 20, 2010, at 6:03 PM, Miles Bader wrote: > It's true, that my claim is "just my claim" -- but on the other hand > so is yours (it doesn't seem any more logically consistent). True enough. My opinions on `expected behavior' are perhaps better described ``what I believe new users who start with modern GUI's (Gnome/KDE/MacOSX/Winwhatever) are more likely to expect, based on a pretty small sample size'', which is indeed `suspect' by itself. >> I suggest adding a flag to invert the default meaning of ARG in >> exchange-point-and-mark, at least as an experiment. I suspect that >> the new behavior would be more in line with expected behavior for most >> people, but it'd be hard to determine, and it seems reasonable to >> default to the existing behavior in such a situation. > > Er, how about a bit more basis than "I suspect" first... Probably I should have emphasized the ``as an experiment'' part more. That's my fault; I had originally intended to include a patch to try, then something came up that caused me to not have as much time as I'd expected so I quickly rewrote the email and sent it. I wasn't suggesting that we change the default for everyone and see what happens, but it certainly could be read that way. I'm using such a simple patch now, but I don't believe that it will do the right thing in the face of t-m-m being enabled/disabled, so I'm holding out for more time or for someone else to create and send a better experimental candidate. At that point, I'd hope to get some of the list stalwarts who dislike t-m-m to potentially give it a try and see if it's better, worse, or indistinct. Sorry for any confusion. *Chad