From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Dieter Wilhelm Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.help Subject: Re: pasting many times Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2006 19:39:40 +0200 Organization: The Church of Emacs Message-ID: <87d58dslnn.fsf@hans.local.net> References: <87slhdsc90.fsf@hans.local.net> <1161799764.064357.254390@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <85slhbt1au.fsf@lola.goethe.zz> NNTP-Posting-Host: main.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1161972519 5340 80.91.229.2 (27 Oct 2006 18:08:39 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2006 18:08:39 +0000 (UTC) Cc: help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Original-X-From: help-gnu-emacs-bounces+geh-help-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Fri Oct 27 20:08:36 2006 Return-path: Envelope-to: geh-help-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by ciao.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GdViq-0001a9-Kc for geh-help-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Fri, 27 Oct 2006 19:42:25 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GdVip-0003nf-3B for geh-help-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Fri, 27 Oct 2006 13:42:23 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1GdVgj-0001dD-G9 for help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Fri, 27 Oct 2006 13:40:13 -0400 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1GdVgZ-0001TT-S1 for help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Fri, 27 Oct 2006 13:40:12 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GdVgZ-0001TN-PF for help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Fri, 27 Oct 2006 13:40:03 -0400 Original-Received: from [212.227.126.183] (helo=moutng.kundenserver.de) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.52) id 1GdVgS-00054u-3I; Fri, 27 Oct 2006 13:39:56 -0400 Original-Received: from [84.167.67.15] (helo=duenenhof-wilhelm.de) by mrelayeu.kundenserver.de (node=mrelayeu4) with ESMTP (Nemesis), id 0ML21M-1GdVgP2Jbv-0006ok; Fri, 27 Oct 2006 19:39:53 +0200 Original-Received: by duenenhof-wilhelm.de (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 62C66755BF; Fri, 27 Oct 2006 19:39:40 +0200 (CEST) Original-To: David Kastrup In-Reply-To: <85slhbt1au.fsf@lola.goethe.zz> (David Kastrup's message of "Thu\, 26 Oct 2006 19\:49\:29 +0200") User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.0.50 (gnu/linux) X-Provags-ID: kundenserver.de abuse@kundenserver.de login:d7ab225b98a136e1c2910381f940ecb9 X-BeenThere: help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Users list for the GNU Emacs text editor List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: help-gnu-emacs-bounces+geh-help-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: help-gnu-emacs-bounces+geh-help-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.help:38333 Archived-At: David Kastrup writes: ... >>>> And when we are at it. I do not understand why M-y depends on C-y at >>>> all, lets just take the second entry of kill-ring by default and third >>>> and fourth and so on? >>> > I'd start M-y with the first entry of the kill-ring. It would > probably make M-y more popular than C-y, but people might learn to > live with that. It would probably also make sense to have C-y accept > a multiplier argument (probably more expected) while letting M-y > accept a stack pointer argument. It might be more consistent with Emacs conventions but I suggest this because we are getting more functionality and yet the users is getting a smoother transition from the previous definition. Are you concerned because of the default interactive argument which is 1? Hmm, couldn't we apply the c counting convention for the kill ring: 0 is the current kill (the first entry) 1 the previous one and so on? It is just a matter of the proper documentation, isn't it? > > So if you were certain to need only the most recent kill, you'd use > C-y, and if you _might_ want a different kill, you'd use M-y. Exactly, so far I can only discern an extension of functionality and no disadvantages compared to the current handling of C-y and M-y. Let's see what happens now in Baurzhan's case: You press the C-key for the interactive arguments (they work with C- as well with M-) then 59 and then y. This means 4 key presses compared to vim's 5 (ESC 59p i). (OK, this is the worst case for vim but I guess statistically it'd be a draw between the two editors 8-) -- Best wishes H. Dieter Wilhelm Darmstadt, Germany