From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Alan Mackenzie Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Documentation of transient-mark-mode is sloppy, wrong, and confused. Date: Fri, 29 May 2009 13:13:11 +0000 Message-ID: <20090529131311.GE2793@muc.de> References: <20090528122927.GA2175@muc.de> <87fxepf9s8.fsf@cyd.mit.edu> <20090528201529.GA4605@muc.de> <87bppdx8c0.fsf@cyd.mit.edu> <20090528230359.GA1474@muc.de> <83zlcwqp89.fsf@gnu.org> <20090529092709.GB2793@muc.de> <831vq85ict.fsf@gnu.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1243602763 20503 80.91.229.12 (29 May 2009 13:12:43 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 29 May 2009 13:12:43 +0000 (UTC) Cc: cyd@stupidchicken.com, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Eli Zaretskii Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Fri May 29 15:12:39 2009 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1MA1sz-0007EJ-PR for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 29 May 2009 15:12:38 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:59585 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1MA1sz-00040e-1i for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 29 May 2009 09:12:37 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1MA1st-00040I-AF for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 29 May 2009 09:12:31 -0400 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1MA1so-0003zC-VQ for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 29 May 2009 09:12:30 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=33000 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1MA1so-0003z9-MH for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 29 May 2009 09:12:26 -0400 Original-Received: from colin.muc.de ([193.149.48.1]:4146 helo=mail.muc.de) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS-1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1MA1so-0008LF-5D for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 29 May 2009 09:12:26 -0400 Original-Received: (qmail 4614 invoked by uid 3782); 29 May 2009 13:12:23 -0000 Original-Received: from acm.muc.de (pD9E514E9.dip.t-dialin.net [217.229.20.233]) by colin2.muc.de (tmda-ofmipd) with ESMTP; Fri, 29 May 2009 15:12:13 +0200 Original-Received: (qmail 6954 invoked by uid 1000); 29 May 2009 13:13:11 -0000 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <831vq85ict.fsf@gnu.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.9i X-Delivery-Agent: TMDA/1.1.5 (Fettercairn) X-Primary-Address: acm@muc.de X-detected-operating-system: by monty-python.gnu.org: FreeBSD 4.6-4.9 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:111198 Archived-At: Hi, Eli! On Fri, May 29, 2009 at 01:11:30PM +0300, Eli Zaretskii wrote: > > Date: Fri, 29 May 2009 09:27:09 +0000 > > Cc: Stefan Monnier , cyd@stupidchicken.com, > > emacs-devel@gnu.org > > From: Alan Mackenzie > > My definition says "a region is > > active, when .... > You are replacing a possibly obscure definition with one that is even > more obscure. Your text says "a region is active when it is an object > manipulated by commands XXX, YYY, ZZZ, etc." I cannot make heads or > tails of this definition. And even if I could, it is not instrumental, > I cannot apply this definition to know when the region is active and > when it isn't. I think what you come up with below is more or less the same as I was trying to construct. But I'm glad we agree about what the definition is needed for. > I'm guessing that you wanted to say something like "region is active > when these and those commands operate on the region only, as opposed to > the entire buffer." But that is a circular definition, because the > manual will say in a short while that "when region is active, some > commands operate on the region rather than on the whole buffer." I think that isn't circularity, it's repetition - the first bit stands on its own. Even if it is formally circular, I think its meaning is clear. We're in danger of descending into philosophy, here. > So I think trying to go in this direction will result in an impasse. It would result in something better than what was there before, even if perhaps not 100% formally valid. > > Do you agree or disagree with me that this is what "active" means, > > regardless of my clumsy way of saying it? > I disagree. You in effect say how an active region changes behavior of > Emacs commands, which is exactly what you didn't like in the original > text. I'm not sure whether that's a fair criticism or not. The original "Mark" page didn't define "active" at all. Yidong's second amendment still didn't define "active", instead describing how you made a region "active". The one in the middle? I can't remember it exactly, and cvs.savannah.gnu.org is down at the moment. There was something about it which either didn't define "active", or wasn't clearly a definition. Defining a state by saying what its effect on Emacs is is the canonical way to define it. > > If you disagree, what do think "active" actually does mean? > How about something along the following lines: > The region can be in one of two states: active or inactive. When > the region is active, certain Emacs commands automatically operate > on the text in the region, instead of on the whole buffer. For > example, bla-bla-bla. By contrast, an inactive region can only be > operated upon by commands specially designed for that job, such as > @code{call-process-region}, @code{count-lines-region}, > @code{write-region}, etc. > When the region is active, the function @code{region-active-p} > returns a non-@code{nil} value. > The region becomes active when: > > WDYT? I pretty much agree with you. Except, Davis has discerned that we have been using "active" in two incompatible ways. -- Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).