From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Thomas Lord Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Transient Mark Mode on by default Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2008 18:24:56 -0700 Message-ID: <47F18EE8.5000604@emf.net> References: <87myopnj0l.fsf@stupidchicken.com> <20080324200911.GA1310@muc.de> <001e01c88dee$34267e90$c2b22382@us.oracle.com> <20080324210229.GB1310@muc.de> <47F128AA.6000905@emf.net> <87y77ybf3x.fsf@kfs-lx.rd.rdm> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------030101090101090902050103" X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1207010713 12742 80.91.229.12 (1 Apr 2008 00:45:13 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 1 Apr 2008 00:45:13 +0000 (UTC) Cc: M Jared Finder , rms@gnu.org, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: "Kim F. Storm" Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Tue Apr 01 02:45:44 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 1JgUdC-0004F1-Jt for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 01 Apr 2008 02:45:43 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JgUca-0001yF-Hw for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 31 Mar 2008 20:45:04 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1JgUcW-0001xw-8S for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 31 Mar 2008 20:45:00 -0400 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1JgUcT-0001xY-JE for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 31 Mar 2008 20:44:58 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JgUcT-0001xV-Ep for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 31 Mar 2008 20:44:57 -0400 Original-Received: from mail.42inc.com ([205.149.0.25]) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtps (SSL 3.0:RSA_3DES_EDE_CBC_SHA1:24) (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1JgUcP-0005gC-A9; Mon, 31 Mar 2008 20:44:53 -0400 X-TFF-CGPSA-Version: 1.5 X-TFF-CGPSA-Filter-42inc: Scanned X-42-Virus-Scanned: by 42 Antivirus -- Found to be clean. Original-Received: from [69.236.65.4] (account lord@emf.net HELO [192.168.1.64]) by mail.42inc.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.0.13) with ESMTPA id 26845970; Mon, 31 Mar 2008 17:44:46 -0700 User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.5 (X11/20060808) In-Reply-To: <87y77ybf3x.fsf@kfs-lx.rd.rdm> X-detected-kernel: by monty-python.gnu.org: Linux 2.6, seldom 2.4 (older, 4) 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:94079 Archived-At: This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------030101090101090902050103 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi, Kim. No, I am not a CUA user although, from hearing it described here I have a pretty good sense of how it works. I don't mean the following effusive praise to be condescending but, really, it sounds like excellent work. Except..... I gather you "inherited" TMM. CUA would probably be just as excellent work, and probably simpler, if TMM had been better designed. I'm trying not to be *too* much of a pill on the dev list of a project I'm not otherwise active in but I do think that the accumulated mistake of the original TMM can probably be usefully fixed, as an alternative to making it the default behavior. -t Kim F. Storm wrote: > Thomas Lord writes: > > >> That doesn't give a "modal" system where sometimes C-v means >> scroll-down and other times it means PASTE. >> > > With CUA on, C-v always means paste, so it is not modal. > Neither is C-z (undo). > > C-x and C-c are modal with CUA on, but have you actually tried it? > In practice, it is very rarely notiable. > > Of course, I've used Emacs before CUA came along - but I wrote CUA -- > and still use it -- because it drove me crazy to have to use different > control sequences in Emacs than in every other application I used. > > And since Emacs was the only application that was different, I decided > to implement the necessary functions to make it work _good enough_ to > make me switch comfortably between Emacs and other applications. > > >> Emacs documentation will still be saying things like "Use C-x f to >> open a file." That's a burden on new users who elect to remap >> C-x to CUT (and some other key to C-x). But it's a small burden >> because it's just those few keys and the rules about how to type those >> characters apply consistently, all the time. >> > > So to avoid the (tranparent) modal behaviour of CUA, you shuffle everything > around instead. I don't see that as a better - or simpler - solution. > At least it is a solution to a problem which doesn't exist IMHO. > > >> -t >> >> >> Richard Stallman wrote: >> >>> Shift-selection is fine, but I don't think we should change the >>> meaning of C-c, C-v and C-x. >>> >>> All else being equal, it would be better to be compatible with other >>> programs, including in this. But all else is not equal, and this >>> change would not fit into Emacs. >>> > > In practice, it fits very well, but I have no problem with it being > an option which you have to turn on explicitly. But it would be > nice to mention it on the splash screen. > > Also, if shift-select is implemented as default, I think many users > will be utterly confused if C-x doesn't do cut and C-c doesn't copy. > > So all-in-all I really don't see why everybody is making a lot of > fuzz over making shift-select a 1st class emacs feature -- when > we could just as well just leave it to CUA mode to DTRT, but possibly > make a few enhancements to basic Emacs functionalities to assist CUA > mode to do its work. > > But once again, I know this is a lost battle... > > --------------030101090101090902050103 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi, Kim.

No, I am not a CUA user although, from hearing it described
here I have a pretty good sense of how it works.

I don't mean the following effusive praise to be condescending
but, really, it sounds like excellent work.  Except.....

I gather you "inherited" TMM.   CUA would probably be just as
excellent work, and probably simpler, if TMM had been better
designed.  

I'm trying not to be *too* much of a pill on the dev list of
a project I'm not otherwise active in but I do think that the
accumulated mistake of the original TMM can probably be
usefully fixed, as an alternative to making it the default behavior.

-t


Kim F. Storm wrote: 
Thomas Lord <lord@emf.net> writes:

  
That doesn't give a "modal" system where sometimes C-v means
scroll-down and other times it means PASTE.   
    

With CUA on, C-v always means paste, so it is not modal.  
Neither is C-z (undo).

C-x and C-c are modal with CUA on, but have you actually tried it?
In practice, it is very rarely notiable.  

Of course, I've used Emacs before CUA came along - but I wrote CUA --
and still use it -- because it drove me crazy to have to use different
control sequences in Emacs than in every other application I used.

And since Emacs was the only application that was different, I decided
to implement the necessary functions to make it work _good enough_ to
make me switch comfortably between Emacs and other applications.

  
Emacs documentation will still be saying things like "Use C-x f to
open a file."    That's a burden on new users who elect to remap
C-x to CUT (and some other key to C-x).    But it's a small burden
because it's just those few keys and the rules about how to type those
characters apply consistently, all the time.
    

So to avoid the (tranparent) modal behaviour of CUA, you shuffle everything
around instead.  I don't see that as a better - or simpler - solution.
At least it is a solution to a problem which doesn't exist IMHO.

  
-t


Richard Stallman wrote:
    
Shift-selection is fine, but I don't think we should change the
meaning of C-c, C-v and C-x.

All else being equal, it would be better to be compatible with other
programs, including in this.  But all else is not equal, and this
change would not fit into Emacs.
      

In practice, it fits very well, but I have no problem with it being
an option which you have to turn on explicitly.  But it would be
nice to mention it on the splash screen.

Also, if shift-select is implemented as default, I think many users
will be utterly confused if C-x doesn't do cut and C-c doesn't copy.

So all-in-all I really don't see why everybody is making a lot of
fuzz over making shift-select a 1st class emacs feature -- when
we could just as well just leave it to CUA mode to DTRT, but possibly
make a few enhancements to basic Emacs functionalities to assist CUA
mode to do its work.

But once again, I know this is a lost battle...

--------------030101090101090902050103--