From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Christoph Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: C-d deleting region considered harmful Date: Sun, 19 Sep 2010 08:23:29 -0600 Message-ID: <4C961CE1.3080909@gmail.com> References: <87eicrx1ls.fsf@catnip.gol.com> <4C94E03D.8090002@gmail.com> <87fwx699pc.fsf@catnip.gol.com> <4C951FCC.1@gmail.com> <87y6axyh1h.fsf@gmx.de> 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: dough.gmane.org 1284906232 27555 80.91.229.12 (19 Sep 2010 14:23:52 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 19 Sep 2010 14:23:52 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Sebastian Rose Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sun Sep 19 16:23:50 2010 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 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OxKo2-0003N4-0t for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sun, 19 Sep 2010 16:23:50 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:43369 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1OxKo1-0001fa-81 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sun, 19 Sep 2010 10:23:49 -0400 Original-Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=60436 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1OxKnv-0001fV-Cv for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 19 Sep 2010 10:23:44 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OxKnu-0002mk-Cb for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 19 Sep 2010 10:23:43 -0400 Original-Received: from mail-yw0-f41.google.com ([209.85.213.41]:40374) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OxKnu-0002mg-85 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 19 Sep 2010 10:23:42 -0400 Original-Received: by ywl5 with SMTP id 5so1766985ywl.0 for ; Sun, 19 Sep 2010 07:23:41 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlemail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from :user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject:references:in-reply-to :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=rUlearAhzN0ehvF9t6WzTPJ4NYqZ26hyTaC1Bmm6p6E=; b=kkd4rRii1+I7ZY7aWmLdW23wX/CilGl8ECuoxTGuhZ5ueEhuo9tr+1e/iOESNJTu4o Vbg5567CLegjCb6ouKBLb4b2nF8Xx+9v45HrXY5IDUDUw11zPzFIO3jQhcx+BKgE8Iwz MP5VhQWhdHI6y6jBFWhUUKGePRcD0lXQPRA0M= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=googlemail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject :references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=KivLtAB0rVnQE6NgCNT2mAMkPYzD4m905gSFOMLVJxE+P1BXeBokdzP6Ds2eoq2xwr EQ/aeN13r0MC+ZHZQm6Y24QTnexbwDYrHuQ/jfRq+8DmcYJQuyLrfXM5L5t6TYq8zLj3 9cSEflIKFJxGh3a3mAY/ksfhMLs6NxD+mYIxg= Original-Received: by 10.100.112.20 with SMTP id k20mr7944254anc.234.1284906221602; Sun, 19 Sep 2010 07:23:41 -0700 (PDT) Original-Received: from [192.168.1.3] (97-122-97-123.hlrn.qwest.net [97.122.97.123]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id e18sm10439931ana.35.2010.09.19.07.23.39 (version=SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Sun, 19 Sep 2010 07:23:40 -0700 (PDT) User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US; rv:1.9.2.9) Gecko/20100825 Thunderbird/3.1.3 In-Reply-To: <87y6axyh1h.fsf@gmx.de> X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 2) 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:130489 Archived-At: On 9/19/2010 7:55 AM, Sebastian Rose wrote: > C-g is a superfluous extra keystroke in this case. > It will be (is) typed billions of times just because of a wrong > decision. Sebastian, I get your point. You like the traditional way of Emacs' behavior and the more I read about it, the better I understand why. However, there are no absolute truths when it comes to discussing efficiency in editing, since there are always personal preferences and habits involved. I might argue, that selecting text (with transient mark mode) and then replacing the text instantly with new text by inserting characters, like any other editor does, is a lot more efficient than having to kill the selection first (or let alone, delete with M-x delete-region!) and then inserting characters. You object, since that is not the way you are used to working. Christoph