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: C-d deleting region considered harmful Date: Tue, 21 Sep 2010 10:04:23 +0200 Organization: Organization?!? Message-ID: <87fwx3v7y0.fsf@lola.goethe.zz> References: <87eicrx1ls.fsf@catnip.gol.com> <4C94E03D.8090002@gmail.com> <87fwx699pc.fsf@catnip.gol.com> <83tylmyclx.fsf@gnu.org> <4C961787.3090907@gmail.com> <87sk13wqxb.fsf@uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1285056285 11907 80.91.229.12 (21 Sep 2010 08:04:45 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 21 Sep 2010 08:04:45 +0000 (UTC) To: emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Tue Sep 21 10:04:44 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 1OxxqF-0007LN-HE for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 21 Sep 2010 10:04:43 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:34642 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1OxxqF-0005rx-3G for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 21 Sep 2010 04:04:43 -0400 Original-Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=37308 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Oxxq8-0005rr-S0 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 21 Sep 2010 04:04:37 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Oxxq7-0007qi-8H for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 21 Sep 2010 04:04:36 -0400 Original-Received: from lo.gmane.org ([80.91.229.12]:44820) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Oxxq6-0007qT-S3 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 21 Sep 2010 04:04:35 -0400 Original-Received: from list by lo.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Oxxq4-0007Hf-OI for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 21 Sep 2010 10:04:32 +0200 Original-Received: from p508ed5a1.dip.t-dialin.net ([80.142.213.161]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Tue, 21 Sep 2010 10:04:32 +0200 Original-Received: from dak by p508ed5a1.dip.t-dialin.net with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Tue, 21 Sep 2010 10:04:32 +0200 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ Original-Lines: 57 Original-X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: p508ed5a1.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/24.0.50 (gnu/linux) Cancel-Lock: sha1:LqhJTwp5RRgxYh2rR4tjaqcsrg4= 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:130564 Archived-At: "Stephen J. Turnbull" writes: > Christoph writes: > > On 9/18/2010 3:18 PM, Eli Zaretskii wrote: > > > > >> So I just switched off `transient-mark-mode', which is something > > >> I suspect most Emacs old-timers will be more comfortable with. > > > > > > Here's one such old-timer. > > Out of curiosity, from old-timer to new-timer, what advantages does > > the traditional Emacs behavior over transient-mark-mode? > > Mostly, it's traditional and old-timers are used to it. It took me > close to a month to get used to the various differences, then I > decided I liked t-m-m (actually, zmacs-regions) better on than off. That is to be taken with a heavy grain of salt since historically zmacs-regions and transient-mark-mode have had a number of small differences. Enough that some people moving back and forth used zmacs-regions on XEmacs, but scorned transient-mark-mode on Emacs as being unusable. Now the latter has been in constant flux over the last versions. I don't know how they compare in user acceptance and semantics in the current state. And I don't know whether there are any Double Power Users left who could give qualified comparisons. > The two styles are *equally* powerful. Some people like the modal, > DWIMmish, behavior better (it can be slightly more efficient in terms > of keystroke count), while others like the non-modal, DWIS ("do what I > say"), behavior better (it's better adapted to creating personal > idioms and using "muscle memory", I think). Much of the taste > difference can be attributed to "what you are used to", of course, and > I think that the strongest reasons for preferring one to the other are > what you are used to as "traditional" for you. I don't think that this really applies all too much for transient-mark-mode: the complaints do not center around user interface philosophies, but rather the nitty gritty details. In short: figuring out for each choice the least annoying details of operation. Not having transient regions as sideeffects of other useful operations at all, of course, is reasonably simple to implement. There are not really many commands left where the setting of transient-mark-mode should make a difference, or even a bad surprise. I can think of C-SPC, C-x C-x, M-< and M-> and that's more or less it. Then there are the mark-something commands (I have my doubts they are used very much) where the transient-region behavior would seem somewhat less contentious. -- David Kastrup