From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Richard Stallman Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: delete-selection-mode Date: Fri, 19 Mar 2010 11:56:40 -0400 Message-ID: References: <87ocitw2dl.fsf@stupidchicken.com> <201003130001.o2D01FFQ003489@godzilla.ics.uci.edu> <87vdd1yqe4.fsf@stupidchicken.com> <87eijjzrkd.fsf_-_@mail.jurta.org> <20100317143519.GB4381@muc.de> Reply-To: rms@gnu.org NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15 X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1269014412 8398 80.91.229.12 (19 Mar 2010 16:00:12 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 19 Mar 2010 16:00:12 +0000 (UTC) Cc: cyd@stupidchicken.com, emacs-devel@gnu.org, juri@jurta.org, dann@ics.uci.edu, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca, acm@muc.de To: Lennart Borgman Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Fri Mar 19 17:00:06 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 1Nsec3-0001Sx-Hm for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 19 Mar 2010 17:00:06 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:39910 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1NsebZ-0006i8-V2 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 19 Mar 2010 11:59:22 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1NseaS-0006N3-4J for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 19 Mar 2010 11:58:12 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=49625 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1NseaR-0006Mq-OY for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 19 Mar 2010 11:58:11 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by monty-python.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1NseaQ-0004G5-0A for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 19 Mar 2010 11:58:11 -0400 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([140.186.70.10]:44331) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1NseZB-00047m-Sm for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 19 Mar 2010 11:58:09 -0400 Original-Received: from rms by fencepost.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1NseYy-0002VT-L3; Fri, 19 Mar 2010 11:56:40 -0400 In-reply-to: (message from Lennart Borgman on Thu, 18 Mar 2010 17:41:24 +0100) X-detected-operating-system: by monty-python.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:122286 Archived-At: I wrote > Is this true even when the region has been activated by keyboard commands? > If so, perhaps it is a bug.  Perhaps the feature should only apply when > you make the region using the mouse. You replied I think it would be a very bad idea to introduce an invisible state this way. (I agree with Klaus here - if I do not misunderstand him.) This distinction already exists. Now that I've been reminded of it, I recall why I implemented it. Making DEL delete the whole region after a mouse selection did not affect experienced Emacs users, who edit mainly with the keyboard. So I saw no reason not to do this by default. Making DEL delete the region whenever it is active would be an incompatible change for us, so I rejected it as a default. Some have claimed here that such an "invisible" distinction would be intolerable, but let's check the facts. Have there been any complaints about it? Would someone like to check the bug tracker? Extending the region-deletion behavior to cover self-insertion as well as DEL is a natural change. Extending it to shift-arrow selection makes sense too. These can increase effective compatibility because the whole editing scenario (select a region and then operate on it) is compatible between Emacs and the other relevant programs. In addition, neither of those two changes will affect experiencd Emacs users. There is no practical argument against those changes. The case that could very well be painful to change is that of marking the region with the traditional Emacs editing commands. In addition, that change would give no effective increase in compatibility with other programs, because these Emacs commands are totally incompatible with those programs. We should not break most every user's editing habits for a partial compatibility which is too partial to be of real use. Such a change could lead to a rebellion of the users. However, there remains the question of whether enabling delete-selection-mode would really break our habits. Will it really bother experienced users like me? How about if we find out empirically. I have enabled delete-selection-mode, and I will try editing with it. I'll see if it is a real pain or not. I suggest that others also try turning it on. Then we will know whether it is a real pain in the neck, rather than arguing theoretically that it is or isn't.