From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Deniz Dogan Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: delete-selection-mode Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2010 20:27:07 +0200 Message-ID: References: NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1272565665 10536 80.91.229.12 (29 Apr 2010 18:27:45 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2010 18:27:45 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org, Stefan Monnier , rms@gnu.org To: James Cloos Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Thu Apr 29 20:27:42 2010 connect(): No such file or directory 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 1O7YSb-00006R-5Z for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 29 Apr 2010 20:27:41 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:43646 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1O7YSa-0007sY-2C for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 29 Apr 2010 14:27:40 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1O7YSU-0007rO-Md for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 29 Apr 2010 14:27:34 -0400 Original-Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=35190 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1O7YST-0007qG-Bn for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 29 Apr 2010 14:27:34 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1O7YSR-00052y-QN for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 29 Apr 2010 14:27:33 -0400 Original-Received: from mail-ww0-f41.google.com ([74.125.82.41]:34784) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1O7YSR-00052b-K5; Thu, 29 Apr 2010 14:27:31 -0400 Original-Received: by wwi18 with SMTP id 18so1807218wwi.0 for ; Thu, 29 Apr 2010 11:27:29 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:mime-version:received:in-reply-to :references:from:date:message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type; bh=GXDJfIIvTxfqIYt/pVHhnCN8L0y8xLqMu7zrl8TtUVY=; b=AMocYnMdHdraK3ZLpZx136ZIqE+aemvv6e+sMg5qFSXEeQ404MWnz37Ve0kpavlIaw lRxLn2asXwu3Wtt8rliLFTAz/iRxq8emNrr5u32/H7bHB1/BfzvKckEVVhZvD0Qwvgra zCylB9nuihW4z88V9iru82YmGjDwK7cMMht9c= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type; b=OJAA3x4zqyy8mDVi9YYaHZyQ34Mqiat5l3kq5LkngAVH8fT/eLRff1dZMPrhDsehbi nWEkjeIm5xFLLCMUuyRBHq0agdhiy9KvYd3/GOFWIlcJAjbubYq3GOnjlToxvJnzaX6t 9c6Q5W6ctofEJ6XDAXaHinx4J1npBGZc7HXRw= Original-Received: by 10.216.89.202 with SMTP id c52mr1056258wef.84.1272565648966; Thu, 29 Apr 2010 11:27:28 -0700 (PDT) Original-Received: by 10.216.229.83 with HTTP; Thu, 29 Apr 2010 11:27:07 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: 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:124326 Archived-At: 2010/4/29 James Cloos : >>>>>> "SM" == Stefan Monnier writes: > > SM> I'd like to make the DEL part default (i.e. hitting DEL when the > SM> selection is active deletes the selection), > > With the ability to yank it back, or without? > > The ability to delete text w/o any way to recover it would be a disaster. > > And I haven't been able to deduce the answer to that question from the > various posts on the various threads which I've read. > > If the deleted text /can/ be yanked back, then your proposal is welcome. > > (Even though I used the work yank, recovery via (undo) also would do.) > I don't see how it would be a disaster not to be able to yank it back. You would still be able to kill-region with C-w. I'm in favor of making DEL delete the selection (*not* killing it). Not being able to "undo" back text after deleting it would be a terrible idea, but I'd doubt anyone is suggesting we do that. -- Deniz Dogan