From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Eli Zaretskii Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.bugs Subject: bug#23478: 25.0.93; Mouse region selection asymmetry Date: Mon, 04 Jul 2016 17:57:18 +0300 Message-ID: <83eg79pi29.fsf@gnu.org> References: <878tzky2oe.fsf@gmx.net> <83eg9cecy2.fsf@gnu.org> <87wpn4wgev.fsf@gmx.net> <8360uoe5ye.fsf@gnu.org> <87shxswd5s.fsf@gmx.net> <834ma8e3ll.fsf@gnu.org> <871t3bhbpz.fsf@users.sourceforge.net> <87poqun63w.fsf@gmx.net> <83furqratc.fsf@gnu.org> <87h9c6mkb0.fsf@gmx.net> <83vb0mp1ok.fsf@gnu.org> <87wpl17pvs.fsf@gmx.net> Reply-To: Eli Zaretskii NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1467644499 16251 80.91.229.3 (4 Jul 2016 15:01:39 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 4 Jul 2016 15:01:39 +0000 (UTC) Cc: 23478@debbugs.gnu.org, npostavs@users.sourceforge.net To: Stephen Berman Original-X-From: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Mon Jul 04 17:01:28 2016 Return-path: Envelope-to: geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1bK5NI-0003sM-AQ for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Mon, 04 Jul 2016 17:01:28 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:48447 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bK5NH-0000Hk-7r for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Mon, 04 Jul 2016 11:01:27 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:32959) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bK5K2-0005W3-50 for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Mon, 04 Jul 2016 10:58:07 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bK5Jx-00061u-UV for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Mon, 04 Jul 2016 10:58:05 -0400 Original-Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.43]:53124) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bK5Jx-00061p-R9 for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Mon, 04 Jul 2016 10:58:01 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1bK5Jx-0000Oy-LQ for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Mon, 04 Jul 2016 10:58:01 -0400 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Resent-From: Eli Zaretskii Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Mon, 04 Jul 2016 14:58:01 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 23478 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs X-GNU-PR-Keywords: patch Original-Received: via spool by 23478-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B23478.14676442711528 (code B ref 23478); Mon, 04 Jul 2016 14:58:01 +0000 Original-Received: (at 23478) by debbugs.gnu.org; 4 Jul 2016 14:57:51 +0000 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:37228 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1bK5Jm-0000Oa-P6 for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 04 Jul 2016 10:57:50 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:41915) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1bK5Jl-0000ON-BR for 23478@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 04 Jul 2016 10:57:50 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bK5Jc-0005x8-17 for 23478@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 04 Jul 2016 10:57:44 -0400 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::e]:56510) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bK5Jb-0005x1-Th; Mon, 04 Jul 2016 10:57:39 -0400 Original-Received: from 84.94.185.246.cable.012.net.il ([84.94.185.246]:1932 helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:128) (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1bK5Ja-0002D4-0k; Mon, 04 Jul 2016 10:57:38 -0400 In-reply-to: <87wpl17pvs.fsf@gmx.net> (message from Stephen Berman on Mon, 04 Jul 2016 10:45:43 +0200) X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] X-Received-From: 208.118.235.43 X-BeenThere: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org List-Id: "Bug reports for GNU Emacs, the Swiss army knife of text editors" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: "bug-gnu-emacs" Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.bugs:120399 Archived-At: > From: Stephen Berman > Cc: npostavs@users.sourceforge.net, 23478@debbugs.gnu.org > Date: Mon, 04 Jul 2016 10:45:43 +0200 > > > Let's make one step back and describe the exact change in behavior > > with the last patch, OK? Maybe some of us (e.g., me) don't really > > understand what is the change. > > It simply makes selecting a region by double-clicking with the mouse > more uniform; as I wrote in my OP, the current behavior is this: > > When you select a region by double-clicking with mouse-1 and the end > of the region is below the last visible line of the window, Emacs > recenters the display, making the entire selected region visible > (unless it's larger than half the window's height). But when you > select a region by double-clicking with mouse-1 and the beginning of > the region is above the first visible line of the window, Emacs does > not recenter the display, so the entire selected region is not > visible. > > With the patch the behavior is now simply this: > > When you select a region by double-clicking with mouse-1, Emacs > recenters the display, making the entire selected region visible > (unless it's larger than half the window's height). > > To me (and I think Noam agrees), this is the behavior I would expect, > while the current behavior is less user-friendly; I can't think of a > reason why anyone would dislike the new behavior or prefer the current > behavior, but maybe someone can provide a use case. Thanks, I wanted to be sure I understand the change correctly. This is indeed a change in behavior: the display recentering in the second situation might be undesirable, since some text that was previously visible might become invisible. And what will happen if the region is larger than the window can show? In the first situation, the mouse click actually moves point, so the scrolling that may follow is expected. Not so in the second case. So I still think we should default to the old behavior.