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: Remove delete-overlay? Date: Fri, 02 Mar 2007 01:42:20 +0900 Message-ID: <87hct4j4pf.fsf@uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> References: <45E5F868.7000108@gmail.com> <87irdl3543.fsf@wigwam.brockman.se> <45E6AC5B.20502@gmail.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1172766827 9181 80.91.229.12 (1 Mar 2007 16:33:47 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2007 16:33:47 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org To: bob@rattlesnake.com Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Thu Mar 01 17:33:38 2007 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 1HMoDe-0002bg-BS for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 01 Mar 2007 17:33:26 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HMoDg-0001PY-49 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 01 Mar 2007 11:33:28 -0500 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1HMoDV-0001Ot-NL for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 01 Mar 2007 11:33:17 -0500 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1HMoDT-0001NP-9w for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 01 Mar 2007 11:33:17 -0500 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HMoDT-0001NL-2F for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 01 Mar 2007 11:33:15 -0500 Original-Received: from mtps02.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp ([130.158.97.224]) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.52) id 1HMoDS-0000V6-Gh for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 01 Mar 2007 11:33:14 -0500 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 51CC37FFD; Fri, 2 Mar 2007 01:33:12 +0900 (JST) Original-Received: by uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 359801A2602; Fri, 2 Mar 2007 01:42:21 +0900 (JST) In-Reply-To: X-Mailer: VM 7.17 under 21.5 (beta27) "fiddleheads" (+CVS-20070216) XEmacs Lucid X-detected-kernel: 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:67145 Archived-At: Robert J. Chassell writes: > Interesting! As a native English speaker, the second meaning is > relevant. I have never heard of the first, although it makes sense > etymologically, as in `move again'! Actually, I suspect you have: "removal service" (British term, I think), "cousin once removed", "remove from consideration" (ie, table), "remove an obstacle", "at a remove" (ie, detached), "remove that apostate from our presence". Replace "remove" with "eliminate" in those phrases, and they become rather more bloodthirsty, don't you think? I think the connotation is "moving away" (to somewhere), including the possibility of moving back. Delete implies a return is irrelevant, or perhaps impossible (viz, kill-OBJECT vs delete-OBJECT in Emacs). Granted the usages are rather idiomatic, at least in American English, but nonetheless I have to agree with the European consensus that the connotations are different in a way relevant to the discussion. > I would use a word such as `move' or `detach'. FWIW, XEmacs uses detach for the analogous function, `detach-extent'. `delete-extent' also exists, which detaches the extent but has additional semantics. So I hope that (if the name changes) `detach-overlay' will be chosen.