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: Tue, 23 Mar 2010 08:48:01 +0100 Organization: Organization?!? Message-ID: <874ok7bhse.fsf@lola.goethe.zz> References: <22603146-A346-4FC2-8D74-5D6047865C3A@mit.edu> <87r5nf8s7q.fsf@siart.de> <87pr2ygbii.fsf@lola.goethe.zz> <87tys9180s.fsf@catnip.gol.com> <87ocih158i.fsf@catnip.gol.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1269331829 3412 80.91.229.12 (23 Mar 2010 08:10:29 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2010 08:10:29 +0000 (UTC) To: emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Tue Mar 23 09:10:23 2010 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 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1NtzBu-0005TV-Vm for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 23 Mar 2010 09:10:23 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:43479 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1NtzBt-0004vl-Uh for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 23 Mar 2010 04:10:22 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1Ntyqb-0006rp-Qi for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 23 Mar 2010 03:48:21 -0400 Original-Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=37891 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1NtyqW-0006pi-2p for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 23 Mar 2010 03:48:19 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1NtyqU-0004cb-4J for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 23 Mar 2010 03:48:15 -0400 Original-Received: from lo.gmane.org ([80.91.229.12]:49510) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1NtyqT-0004cN-UH for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 23 Mar 2010 03:48:14 -0400 Original-Received: from list by lo.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1NtyqR-0005o7-RU for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 23 Mar 2010 08:48:11 +0100 Original-Received: from p5b2c2720.dip.t-dialin.net ([91.44.39.32]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Tue, 23 Mar 2010 08:48:11 +0100 Original-Received: from dak by p5b2c2720.dip.t-dialin.net with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Tue, 23 Mar 2010 08:48:11 +0100 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ Original-Lines: 21 Original-X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: p5b2c2720.dip.t-dialin.net X-Face: 2FEFf>]>q>2iw=B6, xrUubRI>pR&Ml9=ao@P@i)L:\urd*t9M~y1^:+Y]'C0~{mAl`oQuAl \!3KEIp?*w`|bL5qr,H)LFO6Q=qx~iH4DN; i"; /yuIsqbLLCh/!U#X[S~(5eZ41to5f%E@'ELIi$t^ Vc\LWP@J5p^rst0+('>Er0=^1{]M9!p?&:\z]|;&=NP3AhB!B_bi^]Pfkw User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.1.92 (gnu/linux) Cancel-Lock: sha1:C7EUawJ3Ea5Hqfx/5B2YCwIkJpI= X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 3) 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:122535 Archived-At: Miles Bader writes: > Lennart Borgman writes: >>> But other than that, shift-selection should be the same as t-m-m-style >>> selection as far as possible -- for instance, there should not be a >>> different set of commands available for "shift-selected" regions than >>> there are for regions created using traditional Emacs commands. >> >> I think some of these problems have been addressed in cua-mode. Maybe >> it would be good to use what is in cua-mode more? > > Er, what "problems" do you mean? Shift-select (without CUA mode) works > quite well currently. What I'm arguing against is David/RMS's apparent > goal of making shift-select _worse_... I was proposing folding the semantics of shift-select and mouse-select. You think that would imply making shift-select worse, but we could probably achieve it by making mouse-select better instead. -- David Kastrup