From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Eli Zaretskii Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.help Subject: Re: Another Emacs incompatibilty Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2020 08:36:13 +0300 Message-ID: <83mu2sfrci.fsf@gnu.org> References: <86r1s648dc.fsf@shell.gmplib.org> <86wo1xz4lt.fsf@shell.gmplib.org> <83imdhgsqo.fsf@gnu.org> <86blj9xc2z.fsf@shell.gmplib.org> <87blj8gbmh.fsf@ericabrahamsen.net> <878secyj10.fsf@ebih.ebihd> <875z9gg5qm.fsf@ericabrahamsen.net> <83sgckftm5.fsf@gnu.org> <87pn7owmjn.fsf@ebih.ebihd> Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="7085"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" To: help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Original-X-From: help-gnu-emacs-bounces+geh-help-gnu-emacs=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Tue Aug 18 07:36:47 2020 Return-path: Envelope-to: geh-help-gnu-emacs@m.gmane-mx.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([209.51.188.17]) by ciao.gmane.io with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1k7uIh-0001lO-1M for geh-help-gnu-emacs@m.gmane-mx.org; Tue, 18 Aug 2020 07:36:47 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:51586 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1k7uIg-0007PW-3g for geh-help-gnu-emacs@m.gmane-mx.org; Tue, 18 Aug 2020 01:36:46 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:36488) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1k7uIM-0007PA-6T for help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Tue, 18 Aug 2020 01:36:26 -0400 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]:45959) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1k7uIL-0007i5-Tu for help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Tue, 18 Aug 2020 01:36:25 -0400 Original-Received: from [176.228.60.248] (port=2493 helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1k7uIL-0007zI-AS for help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Tue, 18 Aug 2020 01:36:25 -0400 In-Reply-To: <87pn7owmjn.fsf@ebih.ebihd> (message from Emanuel Berg via Users list for the GNU Emacs text editor on Tue, 18 Aug 2020 07:27:56 +0200) X-BeenThere: help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23 Precedence: list List-Id: Users list for the GNU Emacs text editor List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: help-gnu-emacs-bounces+geh-help-gnu-emacs=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: "help-gnu-emacs" Xref: news.gmane.io gmane.emacs.help:123709 Archived-At: > Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2020 07:27:56 +0200 > From: Emanuel Berg via Users list for the GNU Emacs text editor > > > CUA Mode comes with a lot of other baggage, whereas > > delete-selection-mode only does this one job. > > Not everyone want the full CUA. > > Hold on, I think I'm onto something. What if both > cua-mode _and_ delete-selection-mode were removed > from Emacs? Wouldn't that solve the OP's problem? They are both optional, so how can removing them solve anything? Besides, we don't yet understand the cause for those problems, as the description which was posted seems to indicate some local non-default configuration.