From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Stefan Monnier Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Is it time to remove INTERNAL_FIELD? Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2015 09:30:49 -0400 Message-ID: References: <87lhhjuq26.fsf@gmail.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1429795877 18485 80.91.229.3 (23 Apr 2015 13:31:17 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2015 13:31:17 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Oleh Krehel Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Thu Apr 23 15:31:09 2015 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1YlHDg-0002ZT-UU for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 23 Apr 2015 15:31:09 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:40245 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1YlHDg-00089L-6e for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 23 Apr 2015 09:31:08 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:38907) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1YlHDU-00089E-1O for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 23 Apr 2015 09:30:57 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1YlHDQ-00053h-48 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 23 Apr 2015 09:30:55 -0400 Original-Received: from chene.dit.umontreal.ca ([132.204.246.20]:39737) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1YlHDP-00053Y-Vx for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 23 Apr 2015 09:30:52 -0400 Original-Received: from pastel.home (lechon.iro.umontreal.ca [132.204.27.242]) by chene.dit.umontreal.ca (8.14.1/8.14.1) with ESMTP id t3NDUngg020335; Thu, 23 Apr 2015 09:30:49 -0400 Original-Received: by pastel.home (Postfix, from userid 20848) id 9EA6615C7; Thu, 23 Apr 2015 09:30:49 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: <87lhhjuq26.fsf@gmail.com> (Oleh Krehel's message of "Thu, 23 Apr 2015 11:55:29 +0200") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/25.0.50 (gnu/linux) X-NAI-Spam-Flag: NO X-NAI-Spam-Threshold: 5 X-NAI-Spam-Score: 0 X-NAI-Spam-Rules: 1 Rules triggered RV5285=0 X-NAI-Spam-Version: 2.3.0.9393 : core <5285> : inlines <2785> : streams <1427271> : uri <1913868> X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Genre and OS details not recognized. X-Received-From: 132.204.246.20 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:185811 Archived-At: > In an effort to make the mark and mark-active be window-local (like the > point) and not buffer-local, I've started learning the way that the BTW, since our last discussion about it, I'm not sure it's going to be a good change for everyone: when the mark is used to select a region on which to operate, it'll usually be preferable for that mark to be window-local, but for people who use the mark as a simple "remember this location", they may occasionally by disappointed that it's not shared among the various windows of a buffer. Also, the mark-ring will definitely not want to become window-local, so having a window-local mark but a buffer-local mark-ring could lead to further surprises. Not to say that it would be a bad change, but that it may require a fair bit of twiddling until everyone's happy with it. Stefan