On Sat, 23 Feb 2008 09:09:34 +0900
Miles Bader <miles@gnu.org> wrote:

> Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org> writes:
> >     No it's not.  If that feature is desired (seems ok to me), it
> > should just be added to normal t-m-m.
> >
> > That makes sense to me.  Just as C-SPC C-SPC enables a temporarily
> > specially active region when that's not the default (Transient Mark
> > mode disabled), it could set the mark and not activate in the mode
> > where activating is the default (Transient Mark mode enabled).
> >
> > I am not sure whether it is useful, but there is no reason to reject
> > it if it is useful.
> 
> Now that I think about it, I really like this idea:  it's very easy to
> understand that C-SPC C-SPC and C-SPC are "active and non-active"
> mark-setting commands, and simply swap roles depending on whether
> full-t-m-mode is enabled, and obviously C-SPC C-SPC is very convenient
> to type.
> 
> I've never really used the "push a mark" command much, as I use
> t-m-mode, but I think if C-SPC C-SPC pushed a non-active mark, I would
> use it more often.

It will rock your world :) especially when you consider that the mark-ring is
a list. I am going to cook up a function that assumes the marks of the ring
are inside defuns.

That way I can quickly extract several functions by dropping a mark on each
one as I scan through the buffer, and then collect them off the mark ring.
Just one idea, but it's food for thought. It's great to be able to leave
a trail. or apply commands beyond a linear region.

A mark is insanely great when it is just a mark.
 
> -Miles
>