From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Stefan Monnier Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.help Subject: Re: can a command specify overwrite selection behavior? Date: Tue, 28 Dec 2010 09:18:27 -0500 Message-ID: References: <33ac6984-0a0c-4db8-8ea1-50ec5c271a25@x18g2000pro.googlegroups.com> <05a87fbb-31a7-40c3-a890-6c7aacaefac3@t5g2000prd.googlegroups.com> <92235e12-464c-41d9-9a49-33598c157113@i25g2000prd.googlegroups.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1293545959 22582 80.91.229.12 (28 Dec 2010 14:19:19 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 28 Dec 2010 14:19:19 +0000 (UTC) Cc: help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org To: "Drew Adams" Original-X-From: help-gnu-emacs-bounces+geh-help-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Tue Dec 28 15:19:15 2010 Return-path: Envelope-to: geh-help-gnu-emacs@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 1PXaOF-0000PR-Du for geh-help-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Tue, 28 Dec 2010 15:19:15 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:54777 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1PXaO0-0002AV-8F for geh-help-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Tue, 28 Dec 2010 09:18:48 -0500 Original-Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=33632 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1PXaNh-0002AL-On for help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Tue, 28 Dec 2010 09:18:30 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1PXaNg-00029N-Ll for help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Tue, 28 Dec 2010 09:18:29 -0500 Original-Received: from ironport2-out.teksavvy.com ([206.248.154.181]:8176 helo=ironport2-out.pppoe.ca) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1PXaNg-00029F-DP for help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Tue, 28 Dec 2010 09:18:28 -0500 X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AvsEAKOAGU3O+LP+/2dsb2JhbACkL3S/N4VKBIRljhs X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.60,239,1291611600"; d="scan'208";a="86604001" Original-Received: from 206-248-179-254.dsl.teksavvy.com (HELO pastel.home) ([206.248.179.254]) by ironport2-out.pppoe.ca with ESMTP/TLS/ADH-AES256-SHA; 28 Dec 2010 09:18:27 -0500 Original-Received: by pastel.home (Postfix, from userid 20848) id 0915A58AC9; Tue, 28 Dec 2010 09:18:27 -0500 (EST) In-Reply-To: (Drew Adams's message of "Mon, 27 Dec 2010 21:34:49 -0800") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.0.50 (gnu/linux) X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Genre and OS details not recognized. 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:77930 Archived-At: > Arguing that a different approach would have been or would now be > better could be a legitimate argument. I prefer it, but both approaches have their advantages, so I have no intention to claim that one is better than the other. > It is not legitimate to argue that this is somehow an implementation > bug, something unexpected or not understood by those who built it the > way they did. Neither did I say it was an implementation bug. What I said is that it is a limitation due to the implementation technique, as opposed to an explicit goal of the design. Stefan