Re: Emacs-diffs Digest, Vol 4, Issue 70

Re: Emacs-diffs Digest, Vol 4, Issue 70

[Kim F. Storm]

Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org> writes:

>     + 	* simple.el (set-mark-command): Doc fixes.
>     + 	Allow pop-global-mark to be repeated with C-x C-SPC C-SPC...
> 
> I think that is a bad idea.  Peculiar repetitions like this can
> be useful, but they also are prone to causing surprises.
> So we should implement them only when really really important.
> I don't think this one is important enough.
> 
> Would you please take it out?

I added this to make it analogue to C-u C-SPC C-SPC ...  (which I
find is a wast improvement over the old C-u C-SPC C-u C-SPC ...
method).

The only problem with the new behaviour is if the user wants to set
the mark immediately after C-x C-SPC (I'd think that is quite rare),
but that case is not different from the situation where you would want
to set the mark immediately after doing C-u C-SPC C-SPC ...

So I really don't see why this is a bad idea, as I (and others)
actually find the difference in behaviour rather confusing, and think
the new method C-x C-SPC C-SPC... is a wast improvement over the old
C-x C-SPC C-x C-SPC... like it is for C-u C-SPC ...

In any case, I have now reverted the patch, so the old behaviour is
now the default; however, the IMO improved behaviour can still be
selected with a new user option `pop-global-mark-quick-repeat'.

-- 
Kim F. Storm <storm@cua.dk> http://www.cua.dk

Re: Emacs-diffs Digest, Vol 4, Issue 70

[Richard Stallman]

    I added this to make it analogue to C-u C-SPC C-SPC ...  (which I
    find is a wast improvement over the old C-u C-SPC C-u C-SPC ...
    method).

Hmm.  In that case, maybe it is a good feature.

Re: Emacs-diffs Digest, Vol 4, Issue 70

[Kim F. Storm]

Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org> writes:

>     I added this to make it analogue to C-u C-SPC C-SPC ...  (which I
>     find is a wast improvement over the old C-u C-SPC C-u C-SPC ...
>     method).
> 
> Hmm.  In that case, maybe it is a good feature.

I see two possibilities:

* I revert my latest patch (which makes this a customize option),
  and just have the new behaviour .

* I change the default for the customize option to enable the new
  behaviour.

-- 
Kim F. Storm <storm@cua.dk> http://www.cua.dk

Re: Emacs-diffs Digest, Vol 4, Issue 70

[Richard Stallman]

    * I revert my latest patch (which makes this a customize option),
      and just have the new behaviour .

I think that is better.  I don't see the sense in having an option
for one and not for the other.  Perhaps it would be good to have
an option to control both at once; but if nobody is complaining,
we may as well not bother.

Re: Emacs-diffs Digest, Vol 4, Issue 70

[Kim F. Storm]

Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org> writes:

>     * I revert my latest patch (which makes this a customize option),
>       and just have the new behaviour .
> 
> I think that is better.  I don't see the sense in having an option
> for one and not for the other.  Perhaps it would be good to have
> an option to control both at once; but if nobody is complaining,
> we may as well not bother.

So far, I have only received (very) positive feedback for the new C-u
C-SPC C-SPC... functionality, and I don't see why anyone would like to
turn it off.  

I would expect the C-x C-SPC C-SPC will be received equally positive
by the users...

I have reverted the patch and removed the option to turn off the new
behaviour.


-- 
Kim F. Storm <storm@cua.dk> http://www.cua.dk