bug#69097: [PATCH] Add 'kill-region-or-word' command

[Philip Kaludercic <philipk@posteo.net>]

Stefan Kangas <stefankangas@gmail.com> writes:

> Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> writes:
>
>>> From: Philip Kaludercic <philipk@posteo.net>
>>> Cc: Sean Whitton <spwhitton@spwhitton.name>,  juri@linkov.net,  rms@gnu.org,
>>>   69097@debbugs.gnu.org
>>> Date: Sun, 01 Sep 2024 20:06:00 +0000
>>>
>>> Ping.  I am not sure how to proceed on this patch.  IIRC the issue was
>>> that the notion of a word differs in Emacs and in Bash.  I am still in
>>> favour of utilising Emacs's definition, as it remains more useful
>>> for some given major mode and the fact that it is easier to implement.
>>
>> Or you could make the defcustom a tristate, and implement both
>> behaviors...
>>
>> As for how to proceed: Stefan and Andrea, do you have an opinion on
>> this?
>
> Binding C-w to backward-kill-word, or some version thereof, is an old
> Emacs power user trick that has been recommended in many places over the
> years.  See, for example:
> https://sites.google.com/site/steveyegge2/effective-emacs#h.p_ID_193
> https://emacs-fu.blogspot.com/2009/11/copying-lines-without-selecting-them.html
>
> So I think this command would be a good addition.  Making the word
> boundary behaviour into a tristate option sounds like a reasonable way
> forward, which should make everyone happy and let people experiment with
> what works best for them.

How about this suggestion:  We add a generic kill-region-or-word
command, and a user option for a function (set to either
`backward-kill-word' or Sean's `unix-word-rubout').  I can prepare a
patch with the simpler version, and then Sean can add his behaviour in a
second patch so that the attribution remains correct.

Sean Whitton <spwhitton@spwhitton.name> writes:

> Hello,
>
> On Mon 02 Sep 2024 at 11:30am -07, Stefan Kangas wrote:
>
>> Binding C-w to backward-kill-word, or some version thereof, is an old
>> Emacs power user trick that has been recommended in many places over the
>> years.  See, for example:
>> https://sites.google.com/site/steveyegge2/effective-emacs#h.p_ID_193
>> https://emacs-fu.blogspot.com/2009/11/copying-lines-without-selecting-them.html
>>
>> So I think this command would be a good addition.  Making the word
>> boundary behaviour into a tristate option sounds like a reasonable way
>> forward, which should make everyone happy and let people experiment with
>> what works best for them.
>
> For reference purposes while implementing the tristate, here is my
> implementation of the Unix behaviour from my init.
> Should be helpful, though there is lots of room for improvement :)
>
>     (defun spw/unix-word-rubout (arg &optional pos neg)
>       (interactive "p")
>       ;; Do skip over \n because `backward-kill-word' does.
>       (unless pos (setq pos "[:space:]\n"))
>       (unless neg (setq neg "^[:space:]\n"))
>       (undo-boundary)
>       (let ((start (point)))
>         ;; Go only backwards.
>         (dotimes (_ (abs arg))
>           (skip-chars-backward pos)
>           (skip-chars-backward neg))
>         ;; Skip forward over any read-only text (e.g. an Eshell or comint prompt).
>         (when-let ((beg (and (get-char-property (point) 'read-only)
>                              (next-single-char-property-change
>                               (point) 'read-only nil start))))
>           (goto-char beg))
>         (kill-region start (point))))

FWIW I don't have any suggestions on how to improve the function either.

I wonder if it would make sense to have a minor mode like subword-mode
that would enforce a understanding of words like implemented here.

-- 
	Philip Kaludercic on peregrine