From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: "Lennart Borgman (gmail)" Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Shift selection using interactive spec Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2008 18:21:05 +0100 Message-ID: <47DEA881.5090704@gmail.com> References: <87k5k69p92.fsf@stupidchicken.com> <200803140408.m2E47hPU014494@sallyv1.ics.uci.edu> <87prtxpekk.fsf@kfs-lx.rd.rdm> <87abl11ilo.fsf@stupidchicken.com> <874pb9koyw.fsf@stupidchicken.com> <87od9gzqv9.fsf@stupidchicken.com> <87bq5gytbi.fsf@stupidchicken.com> <8763vndi0r.fsf@kfs-lx.rd.rdm> <87hcf6ratt.fsf@stupidchicken.com> <878x0if9ul.fsf@stupidchicken.com> <87od9e9gnx.fsf@stupidchicken.com> <873aqp5mzs.fsf@stupidchicken.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1205774581 31026 80.91.229.12 (17 Mar 2008 17:23:01 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2008 17:23:01 +0000 (UTC) Cc: Dan Nicolaescu , Stefan Monnier , "Kim F. Storm" , emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Chong Yidong Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Mon Mar 17 18:23:30 2008 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 1JbJ3K-0001DC-24 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 17 Mar 2008 18:23:14 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JbJ2k-0005R5-2q for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 17 Mar 2008 13:22:38 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1JbJ1o-0004wn-5l for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 17 Mar 2008 13:21:40 -0400 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1JbJ1l-0004va-KS for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 17 Mar 2008 13:21:38 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JbJ1l-0004vP-1j for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 17 Mar 2008 13:21:37 -0400 Original-Received: from ch-smtp02.sth.basefarm.net ([80.76.149.213]) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS-1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1JbJ1k-0003Lh-AO for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 17 Mar 2008 13:21:36 -0400 Original-Received: from c83-254-148-228.bredband.comhem.se ([83.254.148.228]:62079 helo=[127.0.0.1]) by ch-smtp02.sth.basefarm.net with esmtp (Exim 4.68) (envelope-from ) id 1JbJ1f-0001DH-6U; Mon, 17 Mar 2008 18:21:31 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.8.1.9) Gecko/20071031 Thunderbird/2.0.0.9 Mnenhy/0.7.5.666 In-Reply-To: <873aqp5mzs.fsf@stupidchicken.com> X-Antivirus: avast! (VPS 080317-0, 2008-03-17), Outbound message X-Antivirus-Status: Clean X-Originating-IP: 83.254.148.228 X-Scan-Result: No virus found in message 1JbJ1f-0001DH-6U. X-Scan-Signature: ch-smtp02.sth.basefarm.net 1JbJ1f-0001DH-6U 10c2ac10718a2fcaf8a0639d51ab04b2 X-detected-kernel: by monty-python.gnu.org: Linux 2.6? (barebone, rare!) 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:92838 Archived-At: Chong Yidong wrote: > The way I see it, C-SPC provides a robust region, and Emacs users will > continue using this even after we implement shift-selection; holding > down the shift key is too much of a nuisance. So we're talking about > how Emacs behaves for new/casual users, who use shift-selection > because they're either unaware of or unused to C-SPC. It seems to me > that such users would expect the shift-selected region to be fleeting, > since that is the behavior in other editors. Furthermore, > shift-selection is *inherently* fleeting, since entering any unshifted > motion key deactivates the mark, and motion commands are > psychologically "tinier" (or rather less consequential) than most > commands. I think that for those of us who are very used to shift-selection there must still be ways to avoid deactivating the mark with certain move commands. If for no other reason because keyboard looks quite different. (For example, to type M-> I have to use the shift key. Though admittedly I have never used that one ...) I would rather restrict dectivation to those keys that deactivates region in other applications. (Plus C-g etc of course.) > I've been thinking about cases where you might want the shift-selected > region to persist after a command. The only good example I can find > is M-x eval region, which doesn't deactivate the mark in tmm. But > even in this case, the advantage either way seems to be marginal. If > you care enough about keeping the mark active, why not use C-SPC in > the first place? Replacing things in various ways in a region seems like good candidates. Maybe there should be a way to say "don't deactivate the mark after next command whatever it does"? > Now, there is one other example, and that's switching windows. You > might argue that it's good to preserve a shift-selected region for > this, so that it is still there when you return to the window. But it > seems to me that the effects of shift-selection and mouse selection > ought to be as close to equivalent as we can make it (*), and > preserving a shift-selected region when switching windows is > counter-intuitive in the mouse selection context. Wouldn't it be troublesome to keep the region when switching windows when the new window contains the same buffer with a different window-point? (Maybe at least a warning question in such cases?)