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: delete-selection-mode Date: Sun, 20 Apr 2008 21:48:23 +0200 Message-ID: <858wz8ux2w.fsf@lola.goethe.zz> References: <004a01c8a1a0$7215cdd0$0200a8c0@us.oracle.com> <878wz9btq8.fsf@jurta.org> <85fxthy4qp.fsf@lola.goethe.zz> <87hcdxz9zr.fsf_-_@jurta.org> <87ve2cfk9x.fsf@stupidchicken.com> <200804201931.m3KJVO4X008875@sallyv1.ics.uci.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1208720934 5736 80.91.229.12 (20 Apr 2008 19:48:54 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 20 Apr 2008 19:48:54 +0000 (UTC) Cc: rms@gnu.org, Chong Yidong , emacs-devel@gnu.org, Juri Linkov , Stefan Monnier , drew.adams@oracle.com To: Dan Nicolaescu Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sun Apr 20 21:49:27 2008 connect(): Connection refused 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 1JnfXR-0008LL-5h for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sun, 20 Apr 2008 21:49:25 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JnfWl-0002hr-Va for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sun, 20 Apr 2008 15:48:44 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1JnfWj-0002hd-94 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 20 Apr 2008 15:48:41 -0400 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1JnfWh-0002gR-QZ for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 20 Apr 2008 15:48:41 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JnfWh-0002gH-O1 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 20 Apr 2008 15:48:39 -0400 Original-Received: from mail-in-05.arcor-online.net ([151.189.21.45]) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS-1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1JnfWd-0000Je-A5; Sun, 20 Apr 2008 15:48:35 -0400 Original-Received: from mail-in-03-z2.arcor-online.net (mail-in-03-z2.arcor-online.net [151.189.8.15]) by mail-in-05.arcor-online.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9354618358C; Sun, 20 Apr 2008 21:48:33 +0200 (CEST) Original-Received: from mail-in-10.arcor-online.net (mail-in-10.arcor-online.net [151.189.21.50]) by mail-in-03-z2.arcor-online.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7A9762D3968; Sun, 20 Apr 2008 21:48:33 +0200 (CEST) Original-Received: from lola.goethe.zz (dslb-084-061-002-239.pools.arcor-ip.net [84.61.2.239]) by mail-in-10.arcor-online.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 276532351A5; Sun, 20 Apr 2008 21:48:31 +0200 (CEST) Original-Received: by lola.goethe.zz (Postfix, from userid 1002) id C45FD1C39587; Sun, 20 Apr 2008 21:48:23 +0200 (CEST) In-Reply-To: <200804201931.m3KJVO4X008875@sallyv1.ics.uci.edu> (Dan Nicolaescu's message of "Sun, 20 Apr 2008 12:31:24 -0700") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.0.60 (gnu/linux) X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV 0.92.1/6850/Sun Apr 20 19:05:45 2008 on mail-in-10.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:95538 Archived-At: Dan Nicolaescu writes: > Stefan Monnier writes: > > > > All thinks considered, IMHO the present behavior, where delete-selection > > > is off, is a better default. > > > > Agreed. In my message I referred to using a form of > > delete-selection-mode, but that's a very limited form of it: it only > > applies to `yank'. I like it because it allows me to do C-M-SPC C-y to > > replace an argument. > > How about we do a user poll about this? > That seems to be a better way of deciding a default for such a very > visible feature. It is sort of a popular democratic sickness that people think they are achieving anything by choosing between two existing bad things instead of improving either one. With the current semantics of active regions and delete-selection-mode, I consider the end result painful. That does not change that it may also be in some cases be useful. Polling users and/or setting the default means one gives up on the idea to have something that is useful while not being painful. Does really nobody have an idea how to improve the situation? Maybe generalize mouse-deletion-mode (or what it is called) somewhat: I think that I could tolerate an active region being deleted by typing DEL. Now that transient-mark-mode is the default and that mouse-marking makes an active region anyway, this might make for a more consistent user interface without being too much of an annoyance. -- David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum