bug#13626: 24.3.50; (Regression) `C-w' doesn't deactivate the mark when recording a keyboard macro

bug#13626: 24.3.50; (Regression) `C-w' doesn't deactivate the mark when recording a keyboard macro

[Dani Moncayo]

I observe the below problem in [1], but not in [2].

Recipe from "emacs -Q":
  M-x tool-bar-mode RET F3 C-x h C-w

The mark should be deactivated after `C-w', but it is not, and it is
deactivated upon moving the point.  Nonsensical.


[1]
In GNU Emacs 24.3.50.1 (i386-mingw-nt5.2.3790)
 of 2013-02-01 on VBOX-W7
Bzr revision: 111655
christopher@ch.ristopher.com-20130201171924-mqojkjw974mj7ndq
Windowing system distributor `Microsoft Corp.', version 5.2.3790
Configured using:
 `configure --with-gcc (4.7) --no-opt --enable-checking --cflags
 -IC:/emacs/libs/libXpm-3.5.10/include -IC:/emacs/libs/libXpm-3.5.10/src
 -IC:/emacs/libs/libpng-dev_1.4.3-1_win32/include
 -IC:/emacs/libs/zlib-dev_1.2.5-2_win32/include
 -IC:/emacs/libs/giflib-4.1.4-1-lib/include
 -IC:/emacs/libs/jpeg-6b-4-lib/include
 -IC:/emacs/libs/tiff-3.8.2-1-lib/include
 -IC:/emacs/libs/libxml2-2.7.8-w32-bin/include/libxml2
 -IC:/emacs/libs/gnutls-3.1.5-w32/include
 -IC:/emacs/libs/libiconv-1.14-2-mingw32-dev/include'



[2]
In GNU Emacs 24.3.50.1 (i386-mingw-nt5.2.3790)
 of 2013-01-30 on ODIEONE
Bzr revision: 111631 michael.albinus@gmx.de-20130130192046-nx4rskw7jemmtrw8
Windowing system distributor `Microsoft Corp.', version 5.2.3790
Configured using:
 `configure --with-gcc (4.7) --no-opt --enable-checking --cflags
 -IC:/Devel/emacs/build/include --ldflags -LC:/Devel/emacs/build/lib'


-- 
Dani Moncayo

bug#13626: 24.3.50; (Regression) `C-w' doesn't deactivate the mark when recording a keyboard macro

[Eli Zaretskii]

> Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2013 09:22:38 +0100
> From: Dani Moncayo <dmoncayo@gmail.com>
> 
> I observe the below problem in [1], but not in [2].
> 
> Recipe from "emacs -Q":
>   M-x tool-bar-mode RET F3 C-x h C-w
> 
> The mark should be deactivated after `C-w', but it is not, and it is
> deactivated upon moving the point.

I guess you meant "M-w", not "C-w".  The latter deletes the whole
buffer, so the region is empty and you cannot see the bug.

Should be fixed now.

> Nonsensical.

If you mean that bugs should make more sense next time,then OK, we
will try.  Otherwise, this remark is uncalled-for.

Thanks.

bug#13626: 24.3.50; (Regression) `C-w' doesn't deactivate the mark when recording a keyboard macro

[Dani Moncayo]

>> I observe the below problem in [1], but not in [2].
>>
>> Recipe from "emacs -Q":
>>   M-x tool-bar-mode RET F3 C-x h C-w
>>
>> The mark should be deactivated after `C-w', but it is not, and it is
>> deactivated upon moving the point.
>
> I guess you meant "M-w", not "C-w".  The latter deletes the whole
> buffer, so the region is empty and you cannot see the bug.

Yes, I meant "M-w".  Sorry.

> Should be fixed now.

Thank you.

>> Nonsensical.
>
> If you mean that bugs should make more sense next time,then OK, we
> will try.  Otherwise, this remark is uncalled-for.

I meant that the behavior I observed makes no sense to me, IOW, it is
a misbehavior or a bug.  Just that.  No offense intended, of course.
I'm not very good at English, so maybe "nonsensical" could lead to
misinterpretation.

-- 
Dani Moncayo

bug#13626: 24.3.50; (Regression) `C-w' doesn't deactivate the mark when recording a keyboard macro

[Eli Zaretskii]

> Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2013 17:12:57 +0100
> From: Dani Moncayo <dmoncayo@gmail.com>
> Cc: 13626@debbugs.gnu.org
> 
> >> I observe the below problem in [1], but not in [2].
> >>
> >> Recipe from "emacs -Q":
> >>   M-x tool-bar-mode RET F3 C-x h C-w
> >>
> >> The mark should be deactivated after `C-w', but it is not, and it is
> >> deactivated upon moving the point.
> >
> > I guess you meant "M-w", not "C-w".  The latter deletes the whole
> > buffer, so the region is empty and you cannot see the bug.
> 
> Yes, I meant "M-w".  Sorry.
> 
> > Should be fixed now.
> 
> Thank you.

Closing.

bug#13626: 24.3.50; (Regression) `C-w' doesn't deactivate the mark when recording a keyboard macro

[martin rudalics]

> If you mean that bugs should make more sense next time,then OK, we
> will try.

We could add a suitable remark to the "Coding Conventions" section.

martin