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: Shift selection using interactive spec Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2008 08:35:25 +0900 Message-ID: <87k5k2i6o2.fsf@uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> References: <87k5k69p92.fsf@stupidchicken.com> <200803140408.m2E47hPU014494@sallyv1.ics.uci.edu> <87prtxpekk.fsf@kfs-lx.rd.rdm> <87abl11ilo.fsf@stupidchicken.com> <874pb9koyw.fsf@stupidchicken.com> <87od9gzqv9.fsf@stupidchicken.com> <87bq5gytbi.fsf@stupidchicken.com> <8763vndi0r.fsf@kfs-lx.rd.rdm> <47DC3AB2.9070502@emf.net> <87ejabv7gg.fsf@stupidchicken.com> <47DC79DE.1000201@emf.net> <47DD8A53.8090902@emf.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1205710042 25924 80.91.229.12 (16 Mar 2008 23:27:22 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 16 Mar 2008 23:27:22 +0000 (UTC) Cc: Chong Yidong , Dan Nicolaescu , Stefan Monnier , "Kim F. Storm" , emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Thomas Lord Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Mon Mar 17 00:27:50 2008 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 1Jb2GT-0003X8-L5 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 17 Mar 2008 00:27:42 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Jb2Fu-0004LN-2f for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sun, 16 Mar 2008 19:27:06 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1Jb2Fq-0004KC-AG for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 16 Mar 2008 19:27:02 -0400 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1Jb2Fn-0004Jy-SB for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 16 Mar 2008 19:27:01 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Jb2Fn-0004Jv-PB for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 16 Mar 2008 19:26:59 -0400 Original-Received: from mtps02.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp ([130.158.97.224]) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1Jb2Fn-0000GZ-C6 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 16 Mar 2008 19:26:59 -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 A224F7FFA; Mon, 17 Mar 2008 08:26:56 +0900 (JST) Original-Received: by uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp (Postfix, from userid 1000) id B02691A29EF; Mon, 17 Mar 2008 08:35:25 +0900 (JST) In-Reply-To: <47DD8A53.8090902@emf.net> X-Mailer: VM 7.19 under 21.5 (beta28) "fuki" 2785829fe37c XEmacs Lucid X-detected-kernel: by monty-python.gnu.org: 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:92786 Archived-At: Thomas Lord writes: > You keep misunderstanding me. I understand (enough) about how > transient mark mode models "activation". What I'm saying in > response to that design, not in ignorance of it, is that > "activation" is the wrong model and that the three-variable model > is the model users are thinking of. And the three variable model > seems to come out cleanly in code. And the three variable model > extends and complements the traditional Emacs mark stack. I'm not going to discuss the ins and outs of this, but I'd like to point out that zmacs-regions and shifted-motion-keys-select-region have been t by default in Windows builds of XEmacs for about ten years, and I've *never* heard a Windows user complain about the region doing the wrong thing. ("zmacs-regions" is the Lucid equivalent of t-m-m, and s-m-k-s-r is what it says.) XEmacs implements the "active flag for top of mark stack" model. If you want to do something subtler, Tom, I think a sample implementation really needs to be provided and exercised thoroughly, because the t-m-m model just plain ain't broke in best current practice.