From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: jpw@shootybangbang.com (John Paul Wallington) Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: suggested new command `picture-mouse-set-point' Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2002 02:42:08 +0100 Sender: emacs-devel-admin@gnu.org Message-ID: References: <5xn0p4znhw.fsf@kfs2.cua.dk> <5xr8ef4ipi.fsf@kfs2.cua.dk> <200210242337.g9ONbr217063@rum.cs.yale.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: main.gmane.org X-Trace: main.gmane.org 1035509857 12412 80.91.224.249 (25 Oct 2002 01:37:37 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@main.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2002 01:37:37 +0000 (UTC) Cc: storm@cua.dk, emacs-devel@gnu.org Return-path: Original-Received: from quimby.gnus.org ([80.91.224.244]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 184tPq-0003Du-00 for ; Fri, 25 Oct 2002 03:37:34 +0200 Original-Received: from monty-python.gnu.org ([199.232.76.173]) by quimby.gnus.org with esmtp (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian)) id 184tSH-0004vN-00 for ; Fri, 25 Oct 2002 03:40:05 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.10) id 184tOd-0004E5-00; Thu, 24 Oct 2002 21:36:19 -0400 Original-Received: from list by monty-python.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.10) id 184tNu-0002DE-00 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 24 Oct 2002 21:35:34 -0400 Original-Received: from mail by monty-python.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.10) id 184tNs-0002D3-00 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 24 Oct 2002 21:35:33 -0400 Original-Received: from cmailm2.svr.pol.co.uk ([195.92.193.210]) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.10) id 184tNr-0002Bd-00 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 24 Oct 2002 21:35:32 -0400 Original-Received: from modem-1232.stoked.dialup.pol.co.uk ([62.25.197.208] helo=bundalo.shootybangbang.com) by cmailm2.svr.pol.co.uk with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 184tNl-0007OV-00; Fri, 25 Oct 2002 02:35:26 +0100 Original-Received: from jpw by bundalo.shootybangbang.com with local (Exim 3.32 #1 (Debian)) id 184tUG-0007NC-00; Fri, 25 Oct 2002 02:42:08 +0100 Original-To: monnier+gnu/emacs@rum.cs.yale.edu In-reply-to: <200210242337.g9ONbr217063@rum.cs.yale.edu> (monnier+gnu/emacs@rum.cs.yale.edu) X-Attribution: jpw X-Face: R(_z-rF:grdKO.*u`n);p.i $Eiz=h^CO5eDYv"4:K@#\HN09*Ykx}}B{kF/KH}%f_o^Wp > > you accidentally click or a TAB or after EOL or EOB. > > > > > > Maybe the -rigidly functionality should only be activated if > > > the mouse is clicked in the selected window & frame. > > > > I agree that is a problem, and your solution sounds good (or at least > > the right sort of idea; I haven't tested it). > > I don't understand: this problem is not specific to this > mouse-set-point-rigidly. Normally it is solved in a generic way > by the window-manager by making sure that the click that changes > focus is not sent to the application. > Am I missing something ? If the window manager doesn't swallow the click then Emacs will get it. Lots of window managers have this behaviour. Even with such settings, when the user clicks on an Emacs frame her intention may not be to position point, but merely to select the frame. `mouse-set-point' doesn't change the buffer but rather places point somewhere within it. Using `mouse-set-point-rigidly' instead of it indiscriminately may result in a change (inserting whitespace) in the buffer that the user didn't intend, which may be an annoyance. You have made me wonder whether I am missing something though. Do you think it isn't worthwhile to second-guess the user who sets her window manager to not swallow the focus-changing click? [apologies if you cannot parse this; I am inebriated :) ] -- John Paul Wallington