On Wed, Apr 07, 2021 at 02:58:11PM +0000, Drew Adams wrote:
> > In a nutshell: deactivating (i.e. setting to nil) `deactivate-mark'
> > deactivates the mark-deactivating code. Phew ;-)
> 
> Yes.  An alternative name for the variable
> could have been `don't-deactivate-mark',
> with the nil/non-nil values swapped.

I think the variable name and semantics are fine. Turning
it around wouldn't make it less confusing, IMHO.

I don't have any constructive idea on how to make that more
understandable myself.

So don't take my remark as a rant. Just trying to walk that
triple loop to get my brain clear :)

Cheers
 - t