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: bug#7260: 24.0.50; DEL screwed up Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2010 08:08:29 -0400 Message-ID: References: <87eibf3659.fsf@stupidchicken.com> Reply-To: rms@gnu.org NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15 X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1288008532 14059 80.91.229.12 (25 Oct 2010 12:08:52 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2010 12:08:52 +0000 (UTC) Cc: larsi@gnus.org, emacs-devel@gnu.org, drew.adams@oracle.com, 7260@debbugs.gnu.org To: Chong Yidong Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Mon Oct 25 14:08:50 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 1PALr4-0000dT-Ov for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 25 Oct 2010 14:08:47 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:48593 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1PALr3-000114-RI for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 25 Oct 2010 08:08:45 -0400 Original-Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=58429 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1PALqs-0000zO-84 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 25 Oct 2010 08:08:35 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1PALqp-0007FW-Pg for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 25 Oct 2010 08:08:34 -0400 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([140.186.70.10]:46868) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1PALqp-0007FQ-MT for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 25 Oct 2010 08:08:31 -0400 Original-Received: from rms by fencepost.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1PALqn-000656-Le; Mon, 25 Oct 2010 08:08:29 -0400 In-reply-to: <87eibf3659.fsf@stupidchicken.com> (message from Chong Yidong on Sun, 24 Oct 2010 12:30:26 -0400) 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:132087 Archived-At: If we make DEL behave differently for one type of region, what's the justification for limiting ourselves to DEL? DEL is so special that we need no "justification" for treating it specially. However, that's not what I recommend. It's not just DEL, it is also C-d. For instance, in other X applications, shift-selecting a region and typing a self-inserting character replaces the region. By this reasoning, shouldn't we enable Delete Selection mode style behavior for shift-selected regions? Maybe we should fully enable that behavior after shift-selections and after mouse-selections. -- Richard Stallman President, Free Software Foundation 51 Franklin St Boston MA 02110 USA www.fsf.org, www.gnu.org