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: Thu, 18 Mar 2010 16:57:10 +0100 Organization: Organization?!? Message-ID: <87tysdy65l.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> <87vdcui6oh.fsf@uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> <20100318101223.GB2704@muc.de> <87ocil3edy.fsf@home.jasonrumney.net> <87fx3xzokg.fsf@lola.goethe.zz> <7697A57B1AD9104F993CDF6A5B69430C0A74396C60@CORPMAIL08.corp.capgemini.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1268927873 15576 80.91.229.12 (18 Mar 2010 15:57:53 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 18 Mar 2010 15:57:53 +0000 (UTC) To: emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Thu Mar 18 16:57:48 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 1NsI6U-0003XM-Iv for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 18 Mar 2010 16:57:46 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:37973 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1NsI6R-0007rd-Qf for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 18 Mar 2010 11:57:43 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1NsI6J-0007ql-MR for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 18 Mar 2010 11:57:35 -0400 Original-Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=46186 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1NsI6G-0007oA-IS for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 18 Mar 2010 11:57:34 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1NsI6D-0001cc-Cj for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 18 Mar 2010 11:57:32 -0400 Original-Received: from lo.gmane.org ([80.91.229.12]:46214) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1NsI6C-0001cM-Ud for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 18 Mar 2010 11:57:29 -0400 Original-Received: from list by lo.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1NsI69-0003N2-Sx for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 18 Mar 2010 16:57:25 +0100 Original-Received: from p5b2c2262.dip.t-dialin.net ([91.44.34.98]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Thu, 18 Mar 2010 16:57:25 +0100 Original-Received: from dak by p5b2c2262.dip.t-dialin.net with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Thu, 18 Mar 2010 16:57:25 +0100 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ Original-Lines: 51 Original-X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: p5b2c2262.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:rnekw6O8nNUXVwvMl5cicxIr5uk= 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:122173 Archived-At: "Berndl, Klaus" writes: > The only question is: Do we prefer a default which supports best the > Emacs gurus using it for 1000 years or a default which drops down the > entry barriers for people who come from the other planets? What entry barrier would that be? > There is no need for trying to convince the "other side" that > "this-is-the one-and-only-and-best-of-all-way for dealing with > selections. There is NO one-and-only-way. > > Yes, you are right when you say, delete-selection-mode off has some > advantages, no doubt. delete-selection-mode interferes with the _Emacs_ way of dealing with marks. Personally, I'd be fine to have the equivalent of delete-selection-mode for mouse-selected areas (where DEL already works) and for shift-selected areas. I'm not fine with having delete-selection-mode for by-products of transient marks occuring during the normal operation of Emacs. If we want to go there, my vote is for turning off transient-mark-mode again while keeping the rest (apart from scrapping mouse-region-delete-keys which is not necessary once delete-selection-mode is on). We have temporary transient-mark-mode, shift-selected transient-mark-mode, mouse-selected transient-mark-mode. There is a number of ways to express "I really want to set an active region" as opposed to "I want to set the mark". Our traditional mark-xxx keybindings have accompanying kill-xxx keybindings: they don't need transient-mark-mode/delete-selection-mode. If you really want to delete without affecting the kill buffer, presumably C-u C-x C-x DEL after marking or C-SPC C-SPC before marking would work then _IF_ we keep the "delete rather than kill the active region" behavior. Newcomers working with their accustomed keybindings will never notice that transient-mark-mode is off. They will get an active region for all those ways of creating an active region that they are accustomed to. > But the Emacs team must take a decision: Is it a main goal for Emacs > to "acquire" many newcomers or is this not a main goal?! It is a goal, but not a main goal. And you won't acquire newcomers by swatting them with inconsistent and incomprehensible overall behavior for which no rationale can be given. -- David Kastrup