From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Eli Zaretskii Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Documentation of transient-mark-mode is sloppy, wrong, and confused. Date: Fri, 29 May 2009 13:11:30 +0300 Message-ID: <831vq85ict.fsf@gnu.org> References: <20090528122927.GA2175@muc.de> <87fxepf9s8.fsf@cyd.mit.edu> <20090528201529.GA4605@muc.de> <87bppdx8c0.fsf@cyd.mit.edu> <20090528230359.GA1474@muc.de> <83zlcwqp89.fsf@gnu.org> <20090529092709.GB2793@muc.de> Reply-To: Eli Zaretskii NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1243592370 21320 80.91.229.12 (29 May 2009 10:19:30 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 29 May 2009 10:19:30 +0000 (UTC) Cc: cyd@stupidchicken.com, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Alan Mackenzie Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Fri May 29 12:19:27 2009 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 1M9zBO-0004ec-3r for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 29 May 2009 12:19:27 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:60676 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1M9zBN-0003hp-DD for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 29 May 2009 06:19:25 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1M9z3j-0007QJ-JN for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 29 May 2009 06:11:31 -0400 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1M9z3i-0007Po-0p for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 29 May 2009 06:11:30 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=59286 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1M9z3h-0007PR-BD for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 29 May 2009 06:11:29 -0400 Original-Received: from mtaout5.012.net.il ([84.95.2.13]:24230) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1M9z3g-0003YJ-Nb for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 29 May 2009 06:11:29 -0400 Original-Received: from conversion-daemon.i_mtaout5.012.net.il by i_mtaout5.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2004.12) id <0KKE00100HH7P300@i_mtaout5.012.net.il> for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 29 May 2009 13:11:27 +0300 (IDT) Original-Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 ([84.228.115.215]) by i_mtaout5.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2004.12) with ESMTPA id <0KKE00AORHN2ZOQ0@i_mtaout5.012.net.il>; Fri, 29 May 2009 13:11:27 +0300 (IDT) In-reply-to: <20090529092709.GB2793@muc.de> X-012-Sender: halo1@inter.net.il X-detected-operating-system: by monty-python.gnu.org: Solaris 9.1 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:111191 Archived-At: > Date: Fri, 29 May 2009 09:27:09 +0000 > Cc: Stefan Monnier , cyd@stupidchicken.com, > emacs-devel@gnu.org > From: Alan Mackenzie > > My definition says "a region is > active, when it will make itself the object manipulated by any of the > commands `replace-string', `how-many', `keep-lines', `undo', > `ispell-word', `ispell', `Mouse-3', `indent-for-tab-command', > `fill-paragraph', `sgml-tag', , > `set-justification-left/right/center/full/none', `comment-dwim', > , is enabled>, `keyboard-quit'". You are replacing a possibly obscure definition with one that is even more obscure. Your text says "a region is active when it is an object manipulated by commands XXX, YYY, ZZZ, etc." I cannot make heads or tails of this definition. And even if I could, it is not instrumental, I cannot apply this definition to know when the region is active and when it isn't. I'm guessing that you wanted to say something like "region is active when these and those commands operate on the region only, as opposed to the entire buffer." But that is a circular definition, because the manual will say in a short while that "when region is active, some commands operate on the region rather than on the whole buffer." So I think trying to go in this direction will result in an impasse. > Do you agree or disagree with me that this is what "active" means, > regardless of my clumsy way of saying it? I disagree. You in effect say how an active region changes behavior of Emacs commands, which is exactly what you didn't like in the original text. > If you disagree, what do think "active" actually does mean? How about something along the following lines: The region can be in one of two states: active or inactive. When the region is active, certain Emacs commands automatically operate on the text in the region, instead of on the whole buffer. For example, bla-bla-bla. By contrast, an inactive region can only be operated upon by commands specially designed for that job, such as @code{call-process-region}, @code{count-lines-region}, @code{write-region}, etc. When the region is active, the function @code{region-active-p} returns a non-@code{nil} value. The region becomes active when: WDYT?