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: delete-selection-mode Date: Sat, 20 Mar 2010 18:15:33 +0100 Organization: Organization?!? Message-ID: <87pr2ygbii.fsf@lola.goethe.zz> References: <87ocitw2dl.fsf@stupidchicken.com> <201003130001.o2D01FFQ003489@godzilla.ics.uci.edu> <87vdd1yqe4.fsf@stupidchicken.com> <87eijjzrkd.fsf_-_@mail.jurta.org> <20100317143519.GB4381@muc.de> <22603146-A346-4FC2-8D74-5D6047865C3A@mit.edu> <87r5nf8s7q.fsf@siart.de> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1269105575 2419 80.91.229.12 (20 Mar 2010 17:19:35 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 20 Mar 2010 17:19:35 +0000 (UTC) To: emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sat Mar 20 18:19:30 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 1Nt2KE-0004Ko-Bn for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sat, 20 Mar 2010 18:19:29 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:47639 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Nt2IW-0000My-My for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sat, 20 Mar 2010 13:17:16 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1Nt2Hn-000092-Mn for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 20 Mar 2010 13:16:31 -0400 Original-Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=53153 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Nt2Hl-0008VD-GB for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 20 Mar 2010 13:16:30 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Nt2HV-0001p9-2c for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 20 Mar 2010 13:16:14 -0400 Original-Received: from lo.gmane.org ([80.91.229.12]:60147) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Nt2HU-0001ox-Ox for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 20 Mar 2010 13:16:13 -0400 Original-Received: from list by lo.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Nt2HH-0003Cf-2W for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 20 Mar 2010 18:15:59 +0100 Original-Received: from p5b2c2851.dip.t-dialin.net ([91.44.40.81]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Sat, 20 Mar 2010 18:15:59 +0100 Original-Received: from dak by p5b2c2851.dip.t-dialin.net with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Sat, 20 Mar 2010 18:15:59 +0100 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ Original-Lines: 46 Original-X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: p5b2c2851.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/23.1.92 (gnu/linux) Cancel-Lock: sha1:oqtLJx5SvYYBaRHAi8V3yXZMmwY= 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:122372 Archived-At: Richard Stallman writes: > We have testimony that some ordinary users want self-inserting > characters to delete the region (which they have made with the mouse). > We have testimony that one ordinary user thinks that same behavior is > a pain. I am sure both reports are factually accurate, but where do > we go from there? > > It would be useful to find out what some larger number of ordinary > users think. How many want self-inserting characters to delete the > mouse-selected region, how many are glad it doesn't, and how many > don't care? With mouse-selected regions, I don't care. Alan has stated that he often inadvertantly marks one-character regions when intending to merely position. I don't think that this happens often to me. With shift-selected regions, I don't care either. Both selection methods are something that focuses on marking a region: I don't think one would use shift-cursor movements just so that one can jump backwards conveniently with C-x C-x. We don't want too many different region types if it can be avoided. I we might all be able to get agreement on the following (anybody in disagreement please holler): Let's make shift-selection and mouse-selection _identical_ with regard to the outcome, with regard to visuals and semantics. Both of those selection methods (unless done accidentally) very much focus on marking a _region_, not on putting point somewhere and cleverly leaving a mark somewhere else. I think (or hope so) that we all can converge on _those_ two cases better being the same. And I don't even think we need customization to allow making them different. I would also think shift-extending a mouse region and vice versa should work fine. So I don't think we need to keep a history telling those two things apart. If we can all agree on that, we have removed some of the complexity for further decisions. -- David Kastrup