From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: "Juanma Barranquero" Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Shift selection using interactive spec Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2008 16:41:36 +0100 Message-ID: References: <87k5k69p92.fsf@stupidchicken.com> <47EADCC4.2000207@gmail.com> <854pasvedl.fsf@lola.goethe.zz> <47EB58A8.1040607@gmail.com> <86od904kzo.fsf@lola.quinscape.zz> <47EBA7D2.2010100@gmail.com> <8663v844eb.fsf@lola.quinscape.zz> <86wsno2nav.fsf@lola.quinscape.zz> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1206632559 1896 80.91.229.12 (27 Mar 2008 15:42:39 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2008 15:42:39 +0000 (UTC) Cc: juri@jurta.org, jared@hpalace.com, "Lennart Borgman \(gmail\)" , rms@gnu.org, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: "David Kastrup" Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Thu Mar 27 16:42:59 2008 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 4.50) id 1JeuFJ-0004hP-BQ for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 27 Mar 2008 16:42:29 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JeuEh-00062b-Hv for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 27 Mar 2008 11:41:51 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1JeuEW-0005wh-Hl for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 27 Mar 2008 11:41:40 -0400 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1JeuEU-0005ug-Tp for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 27 Mar 2008 11:41:40 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JeuEU-0005uP-Kr for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 27 Mar 2008 11:41:38 -0400 Original-Received: from wr-out-0506.google.com ([64.233.184.238]) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1JeuEU-0006iq-6u for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 27 Mar 2008 11:41:38 -0400 Original-Received: by wr-out-0506.google.com with SMTP id 57so4057116wri.12 for ; Thu, 27 Mar 2008 08:41:37 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; bh=COiZ4qsIwjNR32B7Hk1g4h5SRS6GYtErZTD0ebgQ8kw=; b=oR4OrA2DkDbR6DaSJXgg7vmj2t/lbDefqJmA233KLdwH+IbMu9cytayn63o7ptIOz+7GUbaeLifoqmtC5RRX7zqzQJyQVUhYUmty/cE5FzreDaNkgxCUokoFCi29E3CYs60v2MmmaagqQCRLaHRFFuVjBa2aaRO5R8Fd2+XZfoY= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=ar5pXUwQuW5vx3mT6NxMtgbSYx74TjDCfYibK7nuJkKVO6lc3IzMZ2SKmjVMQK7Pp8suu8AtAWt8iBordYb3Tf2Hrf2728dIuAn3jOfHahL6ygGvsRd5ieYhCNWA0GsXWyRhgD4xsoi0oNVkSwfvC9D4EvfrMlFRX33to0cNwVg= Original-Received: by 10.115.60.1 with SMTP id n1mr1732520wak.37.1206632496932; Thu, 27 Mar 2008 08:41:36 -0700 (PDT) Original-Received: by 10.114.166.20 with HTTP; Thu, 27 Mar 2008 08:41:36 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <86wsno2nav.fsf@lola.quinscape.zz> Content-Disposition: inline X-detected-kernel: by monty-python.gnu.org: 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:93646 Archived-At: On Thu, Mar 27, 2008 at 4:34 PM, David Kastrup wrote: > Sigh. I never claimed that it wasn't. Could you please reread the > thread? I've read it, I just didn't memorize it. Sorry. > Personally, I don't like the inconsistency introduced by this property. > But it would be even more foolish not to make use of it except as an > excuse for introducing further redundant inconsistencies. Well, FWIW I agree with you that, long term, it would perhaps make sense to remove even this one property, if there's a suitable mechanism that can be attached to the function and not the symbol. Juanma