From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: David Kastrup Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Shift selection using interactive spec Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2008 11:42:10 +0100 Message-ID: <857ig560zh.fsf@lola.goethe.zz> References: <87k5k69p92.fsf@stupidchicken.com> <47D9CA73.40501@emf.net> <85wso66u7s.fsf@lola.goethe.zz> <47D9D366.4060000@emf.net> <858x0l7i50.fsf@lola.goethe.zz> <47DA5D4A.9050202@emf.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1205491353 31825 80.91.229.12 (14 Mar 2008 10:42:33 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2008 10:42:33 +0000 (UTC) Cc: Chong Yidong , emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Thomas Lord Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Fri Mar 14 11:43:01 2008 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 1Ja7NN-0008W8-GE for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 14 Mar 2008 11:43:01 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Ja7Mo-0000hp-7V for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 14 Mar 2008 06:42:26 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1Ja7Me-0000cP-D8 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 14 Mar 2008 06:42:16 -0400 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1Ja7Mc-0000ZR-P2 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 14 Mar 2008 06:42:15 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Ja7Mc-0000Yu-4H for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 14 Mar 2008 06:42:14 -0400 Original-Received: from mail-in-11.arcor-online.net ([151.189.21.51]) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS-1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1Ja7Mb-0007wx-H0 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 14 Mar 2008 06:42:13 -0400 Original-Received: from mail-in-12-z2.arcor-online.net (mail-in-12-z2.arcor-online.net [151.189.8.29]) by mail-in-11.arcor-online.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 26D9F12F29; Fri, 14 Mar 2008 11:42:11 +0100 (CET) Original-Received: from mail-in-17.arcor-online.net (mail-in-17.arcor-online.net [151.189.21.57]) by mail-in-12-z2.arcor-online.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0B8BF27944C; Fri, 14 Mar 2008 11:42:11 +0100 (CET) Original-Received: from lola.goethe.zz (dslb-084-061-012-006.pools.arcor-ip.net [84.61.12.6]) by mail-in-17.arcor-online.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id A7A202BB368; Fri, 14 Mar 2008 11:42:09 +0100 (CET) Original-Received: by lola.goethe.zz (Postfix, from userid 1002) id 294DF1C4F906; Fri, 14 Mar 2008 11:42:10 +0100 (CET) In-Reply-To: <47DA5D4A.9050202@emf.net> (Thomas Lord's message of "Fri, 14 Mar 2008 04:11:06 -0700") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.0.60 (gnu/linux) X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV 0.92.1/6228/Fri Mar 14 05:45:15 2008 on mail-in-17.arcor-online.net X-Virus-Status: Clean X-detected-kernel: by monty-python.gnu.org: Linux 2.4-2.6 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:92519 Archived-At: Thomas Lord writes: > David Kastrup wrote: > >> I have to say that nothing so far indicates that your proposed >> "tentative mark" would differ from the current behavior of "transient >> marks". > > Um. Ok, take a buffer of text. M-x transient-mark-mode. Set a mark. > Move a bit with C-n. Now hit G-g. > > The region is now "deactivated," sure. But type C-xC-x: > the mark you set is still there. A *tentative* mark would > be completely wiped out by the C-g. That is basically just a matter of semantics. The command "C-x C-x" can be thought of as setting the mark at point, and moving point where a mark had been last. > I've described why about 3 times already. Tentative marks always go > away unless the user uses a key-sequence that preserves them or the > command the user invokes is a rare variety that explicitly preserves > it. So the "advantage" of your "tentative mark" would be that "C-x C-x" now beeps and does nothing. What does that buy the user? > (I think if you look back at history you'll discover that > transient-mark-mode was actually a mistake. It was > in effect a crude attempt to hack around the lack of > "tentative marks". People were confused but were happy > that transient-mark-mode seemed to mostly highlight regions > and mostly work like other GUIs, at least in simple cases). > Tentative marks capture the familiar semantics much more > precisely than transient ones. By making it impossible to recreate a mark where one had been last time? What's the advantage in providing strictly less functionality? > Having looked at it more closely now, I would even suggest that > transient-mark-mode be deprecated (as in dis-recommended for use and > of low priority for compatibility, going forward).) I don't get your point. You basically want to remove functionality and sell this as an advantage under a different name. -- David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum