Re: Shift selection using interactive spec

[storm@cua.dk (Kim F. Storm)]

Chong Yidong <cyd@stupidchicken.com> writes:

> Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> writes:
>
>>> Nevertheless, regardless of the exact details, shift-selection will
>>> have to end up setting transient-mark-mode to a non-nil value.
>>
>> Indeed.  I just saw that Miles and Kim were talking about moving the
>> handling of "only" to deactivate-mark, or something along those lines.
>>
>> I plead guilty to turning transient-mark-mode into a non-boolean
>> variable, and would be happy to see it go back to being boolean.
>
> If we're willing to ignore backward compatibility, 


The t-m-m 'only stuff was added in Emacs 23.x, so it's ok to
undo that particular change and replace it by something else.

More radical changes that would break code which works with 22.x
is IMO not an option.

So IMO the proposal below is simply too radical a change re. backwards
compatibility.

>                                                    I think a good way
> to clean this up as follows:
>
>  - make transient-mark-mode a boolean again

It's wasn't a boolean in 22.x either (it may be 'lambda too).

>  - give mark-active a couple new possible values:

This is simply non-manageable, breaking way too much code.


I don't understand why there's such a big fuzz over this.

Based on my experience with CUA mode, and Miles' ideas, it seems
sufficient to use t-m-m "only" mode for the case where t-m-m is off
(the default), and simply leaving t-m-m on for the case where t-m-m is
on (set by user) should do what we want.

This makes it a question of finding the right condition for keeping or
deactivating the mark at the end of a given command...  which is the
question in all cases anyway.

-- 
Kim F. Storm <storm@cua.dk> http://www.cua.dk