From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Miles Bader Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: delete-selection-mode Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2010 11:04:45 +0900 Message-ID: <87ocih158i.fsf@catnip.gol.com> References: <22603146-A346-4FC2-8D74-5D6047865C3A@mit.edu> <87r5nf8s7q.fsf@siart.de> <87pr2ygbii.fsf@lola.goethe.zz> <87tys9180s.fsf@catnip.gol.com> Reply-To: Miles Bader NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1269223509 18149 80.91.229.12 (22 Mar 2010 02:05:09 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2010 02:05:09 +0000 (UTC) Cc: David Kastrup , rms@gnu.org, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Lennart Borgman Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Mon Mar 22 03:05:03 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 1NtX0p-0004jG-1o for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 22 Mar 2010 03:05:03 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:36035 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1NtX0o-0004ID-EG for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sun, 21 Mar 2010 22:05:02 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1NtX0g-0004Gf-7t for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 21 Mar 2010 22:04:54 -0400 Original-Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=58267 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1NtX0e-0004GA-Ff for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 21 Mar 2010 22:04:53 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1NtX0d-00024T-4i for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 21 Mar 2010 22:04:52 -0400 Original-Received: from smtp12.dentaku.gol.com ([203.216.5.74]:48407) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1NtX0a-00024A-9R; Sun, 21 Mar 2010 22:04:48 -0400 Original-Received: from 218.231.234.77.eo.eaccess.ne.jp ([218.231.234.77] helo=catnip.gol.com) by smtp12.dentaku.gol.com with esmtpa (Dentaku) id 1NtX0Y-00019c-It; Mon, 22 Mar 2010 11:04:46 +0900 Original-Received: by catnip.gol.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id C5B962BD5F; Mon, 22 Mar 2010 11:04:45 +0900 (JST) System-Type: x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu In-Reply-To: (Lennart Borgman's message of "Mon, 22 Mar 2010 02:21:07 +0100") Original-Lines: 44 X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV GOL (outbound) X-Abuse-Complaints: abuse@gol.com 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:122445 Archived-At: Lennart Borgman writes: >> Having multiple "types" of selection that are >> sorta-the-same-but-sorta-different is just going to make Emacs harder to >> use for everybody, and harder to learn for beginners. > > Could you please be more specific? This is a bit too general to be > understandable. > > If you for example mean that shift selection should go away then I > disagree. If you mean that we should work towards getting selection > working the same whenever possible then I agree. No, I don't think shift-selection should go away. It's a fine feature, helps interoperability, and does not interfere with other Emacs features. Shift-selection _is_ inherently "special" in one way: the region is deactivated by certain actions, where a t-m-m region wouldn't be. This is an inherent part of the shift-select interaction model, as defined externally to Emacs, so it's necessary. Given the way people use shift-select, this does not seem a real problem (and there's obvious visual feedback). But other than that, shift-selection should be the same as t-m-m-style selection as far as possible -- for instance, there should not be a different set of commands available for "shift-selected" regions than there are for regions created using traditional Emacs commands. Actually, perhaps a good analogue would be the Emacs shift-select implementation: it works _consistently_, and shift-selection can be used with traditional Emacs movement commands (e.g., C-f) exactly the same as with arrow-keys etc. This helps people learn Emacs, because they can gradually extend their command repertoire without encountering jarring discontinuities in the way things work. Someone can learn Emacs-style movement keys while still using shift-selection, or they can learn Emacs-style selection while still using arrow keys; because there's no artificial linkage between the two, the learning curve for traditional Emacs features becomes shallower. There's no "windows/mac-style-usage ghetto" in Emacs, and we shouldn't add one. -Miles -- Virtues, n. pl. Certain abstentions.