From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Stefan Monnier Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: follow-link in grep buffer Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2005 22:32:15 -0500 Message-ID: <874qg0gfsn.fsf-monnier+emacs@gnu.org> References: <16922.19947.785134.975378@farnswood.snap.net.nz> <16926.51952.150749.303780@farnswood.snap.net.nz> <87ll9cgioz.fsf-monnier+emacs@gnu.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: main.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1109388947 12703 80.91.229.2 (26 Feb 2005 03:35:47 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 26 Feb 2005 03:35:47 +0000 (UTC) Cc: Nick Roberts , emacs-devel@gnu.org, rms@gnu.org, "Kim F. Storm" Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sat Feb 26 04:35:46 2005 Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by ciao.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1D4sk0-0003UU-4N for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sat, 26 Feb 2005 04:35:40 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1D4t1s-0000uu-FM for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 25 Feb 2005 22:54:08 -0500 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1D4t0U-0000PQ-Kr for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 25 Feb 2005 22:52:43 -0500 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1D4t0M-0000La-NK for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 25 Feb 2005 22:52:36 -0500 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1D4t0L-0000Hp-Oa for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 25 Feb 2005 22:52:33 -0500 Original-Received: from [209.226.175.25] (helo=tomts5-srv.bellnexxia.net) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1D4sgk-0002Qr-AO; Fri, 25 Feb 2005 22:32:18 -0500 Original-Received: from alfajor ([67.68.218.40]) by tomts5-srv.bellnexxia.net (InterMail vM.5.01.06.10 201-253-122-130-110-20040306) with ESMTP id <20050226033215.HDSZ2988.tomts5-srv.bellnexxia.net@alfajor>; Fri, 25 Feb 2005 22:32:15 -0500 Original-Received: by alfajor (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 7BEE4D7338; Fri, 25 Feb 2005 22:32:15 -0500 (EST) Original-To: David Kastrup In-Reply-To: (David Kastrup's message of "Sat, 26 Feb 2005 03:50:39 +0100") User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.0.50 (gnu/linux) 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 X-MailScanner-To: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:33827 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.devel:33827 >>> I have added a new option mouse-1-click-in-non-selected-windows >>> that controls whether mouse-1 click in non-selected windows >>> will follow links. Default is t. >> >> I think it should be purely and simply removed. >> It addresses the "click to focus window" problem but nobody ever complained >> about it (contrary to the problem of "click to focus frame" which is still >> open). > But that's what the x-mouse-click-focus-ignore-position variable is > for. And we also have focus-follows-mouse to have Emacs be able to do > what it takes to give a frame focus. Then let's use that. > Anyway, I am complete against automatisms that get things right 70% of > all the time immediately, with the user being unable to predict the > behavior 90% of the time, so that he needs to check every time he uses > the feature what actually happened. If there is a braindead > consistent rule that gets things right even only 40% of the time, but > does not require switching on the brain or crosschecking for > correcting the thing efficiently about 60% of the time, this is > preferable in my book. Agreed, which is why x-mouse-click-focus-ignore-position seems like the right solution: it's very deterministic (doesn't depend on precisely where you click, for instance) and safe and unsurprising since when it doesn't do what the user intended, it just did a bit less than what she intended and she can trivially get what she wants by clicking one more time. Stefan