From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Kevin Rodgers Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.help Subject: Re: backward-delete-word? Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2002 16:58:06 -0700 Sender: help-gnu-emacs-bounces+gnu-help-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Message-ID: <3DFA740E.4020408@ihs.com> References: NNTP-Posting-Host: main.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: main.gmane.org 1039824359 14020 80.91.224.249 (14 Dec 2002 00:05:59 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@main.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 14 Dec 2002 00:05:59 +0000 (UTC) Return-path: Original-Received: from monty-python.gnu.org ([199.232.76.173]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 18Mzoc-0003dx-00 for ; Sat, 14 Dec 2002 01:05:58 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.10.13) id 18Mzjm-00031l-00 for gnu-help-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Fri, 13 Dec 2002 19:00:58 -0500 Original-Path: shelby.stanford.edu!newsfeed.stanford.edu!logbridge.uoregon.edu!news.tele.dk!news.tele.dk!small.news.tele.dk!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!170.207.51.80!not-for-mail Original-Newsgroups: gnu.emacs.help Original-Lines: 43 Original-NNTP-Posting-Host: 170.207.51.80 Original-X-Trace: fu-berlin.de 1039823874 36857690 170.207.51.80 (16 [82742]) User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; SunOS i86pc; en-US; rv:0.9.4.1) Gecko/20020406 Netscape6/6.2.2 X-Accept-Language: en-us Original-Xref: shelby.stanford.edu gnu.emacs.help:108120 Original-To: help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org X-BeenThere: help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1b5 Precedence: list List-Id: Users list for the GNU Emacs text editor List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: , Errors-To: help-gnu-emacs-bounces+gnu-help-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.emacs.help:4650 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.help:4650 Barry Margolin wrote: > In article , > Joe Fineman wrote: > >>"Bingham, Jay" writes: >> >> >>>In similar circumstances I have stored text in a register and >>>inserted it into the buffer from the register. >>> >>I too have often found registers a welcome relief from the >>complexities of the kill ring. However, there is one oddity about >>their implementation that takes some getting used to. When you insert >>the contents of a register (C-x g), point is at the beginning of the >>insertion; you have to do C-x C-x to get it to the end, where it would >>be after yanking from the kill ring. Either outcome could be argued >>for, but it seems perverse to do these two very similar jobs in >>different ways. >> > > I too have always found this curious. My guess is that it's because > registers are most often used in keyboard macros (if you think of a macro > as a program, registers are the "variables"), while yanking is mainly > interactive, and the designer of the register code didn't think the same > expectations applied. In any case, when creating a macro, it's easy to fix > up the location after inserting a register, and then you don't have to > worry about it. C-x g runs the command insert-register-compatibility-binding: Insert contents of register REGISTER. (REGISTER is a character.) Normally puts point before and mark after the inserted text. If optional second arg is non-nil, puts mark before and point after. Interactively, second arg is non-nil if prefix arg is supplied. So: C-u C-x g -- Kevin Rodgers