From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Eli Zaretskii Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: C-d deleting region considered harmful Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2010 08:55:26 -0400 Message-ID: References: <87eicrx1ls.fsf@catnip.gol.com> <83lj6zz9o0.fsf@gnu.org> <87bp7setll.fsf@altern.org> <871v8obqya.fsf@altern.org> <87tylkzkia.fsf@lola.goethe.zz> Reply-To: Eli Zaretskii NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1284987358 23332 80.91.229.12 (20 Sep 2010 12:55:58 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2010 12:55:58 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org To: David Kastrup Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Mon Sep 20 14:55:57 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 1OxfuU-00032p-JD for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 20 Sep 2010 14:55:57 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:45894 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1OxfuQ-0006kZ-8f for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 20 Sep 2010 08:55:50 -0400 Original-Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=47482 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1OxfuF-0006jW-CE for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 20 Sep 2010 08:55:45 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Oxfu2-00025n-NA for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 20 Sep 2010 08:55:27 -0400 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([140.186.70.10]:40926) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Oxfu2-00025j-Ju for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 20 Sep 2010 08:55:26 -0400 Original-Received: from eliz by fencepost.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Oxfu2-0003SY-E6; Mon, 20 Sep 2010 08:55:26 -0400 In-reply-to: <87tylkzkia.fsf@lola.goethe.zz> (message from David Kastrup on Mon, 20 Sep 2010 14:07:09 +0200) 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:130532 Archived-At: > From: David Kastrup > Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2010 14:07:09 +0200 > > Eli Zaretskii writes: > > >> From: Bastien > >> Cc: lennart.borgman@gmail.com, rms@gnu.org, emacs-devel@gnu.org, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca, drew.adams@oracle.com, miles@gnu.org > >> Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2010 13:21:49 +0200 > >> > >> Eli Zaretskii writes: > >> > >> >> But besides that, is there any reason why no poll has been made so far? > >> > > >> > Because we know better without any polls? > >> > >> The problem is we all might have a different interpretation of "we". > > > > I meant _my_ interpretation. > > Shouldn't that read "We meant _our_ interpretation" for consistency? That would be a circular definition, suffering from the same issue that Bastien raised above. But since _my_ and _ours_ is the same here, I've elected to disambiguate it.