From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Jason Rumney Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: delete-selection-mode Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2008 01:28:19 +0100 Message-ID: <480BDFA3.6000102@gnu.org> References: <004a01c8a1a0$7215cdd0$0200a8c0@us.oracle.com> <878wz9btq8.fsf@jurta.org> <85fxthy4qp.fsf@lola.goethe.zz> <87hcdxz9zr.fsf_-_@jurta.org> <20080420193750.GA3523@muc.de> <85hcdwuxz1.fsf@lola.goethe.zz> <480BB520.8010201@gnu.org> <480BB981.9030607@gmail.com> <001301c8a344$16b407e0$0200a8c0@us.oracle.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 1208737749 17771 80.91.229.12 (21 Apr 2008 00:29:09 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2008 00:29:09 +0000 (UTC) Cc: rms@gnu.org, "'Lennart Borgman \(gmail\)'" , emacs-devel@gnu.org, 'Juri Linkov' , monnier@iro.umontreal.ca, 'Alan Mackenzie' To: Drew Adams Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Mon Apr 21 02:29:43 2008 connect(): Connection refused 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 1Jnjuh-0003Lv-43 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 21 Apr 2008 02:29:43 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Jnju1-0000nW-Oa for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sun, 20 Apr 2008 20:29:01 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1Jnjtw-0000nD-Kt for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 20 Apr 2008 20:28:56 -0400 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1Jnjtu-0000mm-KS for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 20 Apr 2008 20:28:55 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Jnjtu-0000mQ-Cz for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 20 Apr 2008 20:28:54 -0400 Original-Received: from mk-outboundfilter-4.mail.uk.tiscali.com ([212.74.114.32]) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1Jnjtn-0007zy-3Y; Sun, 20 Apr 2008 20:28:47 -0400 Original-X-Trace: 64392418/mk-outboundfilter-2.mail.uk.tiscali.com/F2S/$ACCEPTED/freedom2Surf-customers/83.67.23.108 X-SBRS: None X-RemoteIP: 83.67.23.108 X-IP-MAIL-FROM: jasonr@gnu.org X-IP-BHB: Once X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AqQEAOZ8C0hTQxds/2dsb2JhbACBUKc+ X-IP-Direction: IN Original-Received: from i-83-67-23-108.freedom2surf.net (HELO wanchan.jasonrumney.net) ([83.67.23.108]) by smtp.f2s.tiscali.co.uk with ESMTP; 21 Apr 2008 01:28:45 +0100 Original-Received: from [192.168.249.27] (chiko.jasonrumney.net [192.168.249.27]) by wanchan.jasonrumney.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4B2FBB4; Mon, 21 Apr 2008 01:29:11 +0100 (BST) User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.12 (Windows/20080213) In-Reply-To: <001301c8a344$16b407e0$0200a8c0@us.oracle.com> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.6 OpenPGP: id=8086879D X-detected-kernel: by monty-python.gnu.org: Genre and OS details not recognized. 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:95576 Archived-At: Drew Adams wrote: > This is what comes, I suppose, of the suggestion that it become the default > behavior. We end up with proposals to shoot out its kneecaps. Calm down! I've made no suggestion to change delete-selection-mode itself. I am merely offering a suggestion for the circumstances in which it might be acceptable, and even desirable to turn it on by default. > Delete selection > mode is not CUA selection or shift selection. It is not exactly what newbies are > used to, and it shouldn't be made so. Let it be. > I don't understand what this difference you are hinting at. What is it that you fear will be added to or subtracted from delete-selection-mode to make it exactly what is needed here?