From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: "Stephen J. Turnbull" Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Documentation of transient-mark-mode is sloppy, wrong, and confused. Date: Fri, 29 May 2009 17:25:44 +0900 Message-ID: <878wkgco3b.fsf@uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> References: <20090528122927.GA2175@muc.de> <87fxepf9s8.fsf@cyd.mit.edu> <20090528201529.GA4605@muc.de> <87bppdx8c0.fsf@cyd.mit.edu> <20090528230359.GA1474@muc.de> <4A1F7706.80501@online.de> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1243585300 1636 80.91.229.12 (29 May 2009 08:21:40 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 29 May 2009 08:21:40 +0000 (UTC) Cc: Kevin Rodgers , emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Andreas Roehler Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Fri May 29 10:21:37 2009 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 1M9xLK-0001Rp-VT for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 29 May 2009 10:21:35 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:53365 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1M9xLK-0001ff-9L for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 29 May 2009 04:21:34 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1M9xLF-0001fa-G9 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 29 May 2009 04:21:29 -0400 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1M9xLA-0001cJ-J5 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 29 May 2009 04:21:29 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=43557 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1M9xLA-0001c1-Fl for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 29 May 2009 04:21:24 -0400 Original-Received: from mtps02.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp ([130.158.97.224]:51642) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1M9xL9-00087E-Se for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 29 May 2009 04:21:24 -0400 Original-Received: from uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp (uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp [130.158.99.156]) by mtps02.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id E63728214; Fri, 29 May 2009 17:21:21 +0900 (JST) Original-Received: by uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp (Postfix, from userid 1000) id BF982120C0B; Fri, 29 May 2009 17:25:45 +0900 (JST) In-Reply-To: <4A1F7706.80501@online.de> X-Mailer: VM 8.0.12-devo-585 under 21.5 (beta28) "fuki" 83e35df20028+ XEmacs Lucid (x86_64-unknown-linux) X-detected-operating-system: by monty-python.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6, seldom 2.4 (older, 4) 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:111181 Archived-At: Andreas Roehler writes: > 1) region-exists-p > 2) region-has-extent Please don't use this term this way. It would be very confusing for XEmacs. It's not clear to me why anybody cares about whether the region has non-zero length or not, anyway. It seems to me that `region-exists-p' and `region-active-p' as used in XEmacs would be sufficient. > 3) region-is-visible I don't understand what Alan's problem with "active regions" is. As I've pointed out in the past, although "receptive" might be a better term, usages like "active receptor" (in biochemistry) are very common. If Alan is essentially unique in this objection, and he seems to be (sorry, Alan!) then I see no need to cater to him. >=20 > Best regards >=20 > Andreas R=F6hler >=20