From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Lennart Borgman Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: d-s-m default: Nil + explanation! Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2010 15:42:12 +0100 Message-ID: References: <87sk7pzqsp.fsf@ambire.localdomain> <8739zps45s.fsf@mean.albasani.net> <87mxxw6c7b.fsf@lola.goethe.zz> <87fx3o4k1j.fsf@lola.goethe.zz> <35080.130.55.118.19.1269526888.squirrel@webmail.lanl.gov> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1269528704 12763 80.91.229.12 (25 Mar 2010 14:51:44 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2010 14:51:44 +0000 (UTC) Cc: David Kastrup , emacs-devel@gnu.org To: herring@lanl.gov Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Thu Mar 25 15:51:35 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 1NuoPF-00044G-P1 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 25 Mar 2010 15:51:34 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:47899 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1NuoPF-0007Y2-AC for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 25 Mar 2010 10:51:33 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1NuoGd-0006ZL-Hq for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 25 Mar 2010 10:42:39 -0400 Original-Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=60697 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1NuoGa-0006VK-Lk for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 25 Mar 2010 10:42:39 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1NuoGY-00013e-3W for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 25 Mar 2010 10:42:36 -0400 Original-Received: from mail-fx0-f225.google.com ([209.85.220.225]:52487) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1NuoGX-00013X-VB; Thu, 25 Mar 2010 10:42:34 -0400 Original-Received: by fxm25 with SMTP id 25so41230fxm.26 for ; Thu, 25 Mar 2010 07:42:33 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:in-reply-to:references :from:date:message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=9l2syrGGB0tQFwCIsHGHteySmxqvy0iZCEDn5ser6xg=; b=Ny3xsIf5GfcGMfD16gjTaElkCtGwascM5BDxTbefKFUCtJuLSK8m4heS+AuZug/c+I l/Bddn3/Dbr9Fyo5wM6ZwTpHnG6uJKt5lvoofJt4C2wqMb4ej9rynNdvV2hx44CywkXc lKBqalN0YJ0U2rhEBnG4wPEAlsViObALCHuv8= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=lLaA3gMLRkBJ4Ky8S1SOpD5IABwhX1cLw/CC7ExmEQYziqAts73D+9kQVa8bfwHebU BjiqILLpgyB0QquPuGKUWUNPyZG/SvvABGHJuu8eUtPay6aFvrqKghTrNM130r7pNeBo ppmqmE8xoQwPwUODTRX2njEw3Jq2959qAQRHA= Original-Received: by 10.239.181.73 with SMTP id l9mr1119988hbg.55.1269528152925; Thu, 25 Mar 2010 07:42:32 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <35080.130.55.118.19.1269526888.squirrel@webmail.lanl.gov> X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 2) 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:122656 Archived-At: On Thu, Mar 25, 2010 at 3:21 PM, Davis Herring wrote: >>> So you seriously believe that currently it is not possible for a >>> prospective user to do even the simplest editing in Emacs. >> >> Yes I do. >> >> In simple editing I include that the visible region behaves as they do >> in other editing environment. That is something I have seen people >> using very frequently. > > But is that "the simplest editing" or merely "simple editing"? =C2=A0The = former > is more objective than the latter, because most of us would agree on an > approximate order of complexity among editing operations, but it is quite > arbitrary where to draw the line between "simple" operations and the > others. I do not think it is very arbitrary. I see people erasing/overwriting the visible region all the time. And I see them selecting it with both mouse and keyboard.