Re: backward-delete-word?

[Kevin Rodgers <kevin.rodgers@ihs.com>]

Barry Margolin wrote:

> In article <wkk7ida6q3.fsf@TheWorld.com>,
> Joe Fineman  <jcf@TheWorld.com> wrote:
> 
>>"Bingham, Jay" <Jay.Bingham@hp.com> writes:
>>
>>
>>>In similar circumstances I have stored text in a register and
>>>inserted it into the buffer from the register.
>>>
>>I too have often found registers a welcome relief from the
>>complexities of the kill ring.  However, there is one oddity about
>>their implementation that takes some getting used to.  When you insert
>>the contents of a register (C-x g), point is at the beginning of the
>>insertion; you have to do C-x C-x to get it to the end, where it would
>>be after yanking from the kill ring.  Either outcome could be argued
>>for, but it seems perverse to do these two very similar jobs in
>>different ways.
>>
> 
> I too have always found this curious.  My guess is that it's because
> registers are most often used in keyboard macros (if you think of a macro
> as a program, registers are the "variables"), while yanking is mainly
> interactive, and the designer of the register code didn't think the same
> expectations applied.  In any case, when creating a macro, it's easy to fix
> up the location after inserting a register, and then you don't have to
> worry about it.


C-x g runs the command insert-register-compatibility-binding:

Insert contents of register REGISTER.  (REGISTER is a character.)
Normally puts point before and mark after the inserted text.
If optional second arg is non-nil, puts mark before and point after.
Interactively, second arg is non-nil if prefix arg is supplied.


So: C-u C-x g

-- 
<a href="mailto:&lt;kevin.rodgers&#64;ihs.com&gt;">Kevin Rodgers</a>