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: fill-paragraph-or-region Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2007 09:57:08 -0400 Message-ID: References: NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1192802362 25500 80.91.229.12 (19 Oct 2007 13:59:22 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2007 13:59:22 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org To: rms@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Fri Oct 19 15:59:23 2007 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 1IisNL-0006Ze-8c for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 19 Oct 2007 15:58:55 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IisND-000265-To for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 19 Oct 2007 09:58:47 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1IisLk-0000lJ-Fq for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 19 Oct 2007 09:57:16 -0400 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1IisLi-0000ja-G7 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 19 Oct 2007 09:57:15 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IisLi-0000jP-AM for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 19 Oct 2007 09:57:14 -0400 Original-Received: from tomts40.bellnexxia.net ([209.226.175.97] helo=tomts40-srv.bellnexxia.net) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1IisLd-0001qR-Oe; Fri, 19 Oct 2007 09:57:10 -0400 Original-Received: from pastel.home ([74.12.207.168]) by tomts40-srv.bellnexxia.net (InterMail vM.5.01.06.13 201-253-122-130-113-20050324) with ESMTP id <20071019135708.SZC1617.tomts40-srv.bellnexxia.net@pastel.home>; Fri, 19 Oct 2007 09:57:08 -0400 Original-Received: by pastel.home (Postfix, from userid 20848) id 3EF227F7B; Fri, 19 Oct 2007 09:57:08 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: (Richard Stallman's message of "Fri\, 19 Oct 2007 01\:40\:42 -0400") User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/23.0.50 (gnu/linux) X-detected-kernel: by monty-python.gnu.org: Solaris 8 (1) 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:81218 Archived-At: > It seems like a bad idea to me: fill-paragraph is already complex enough: > what's the benefit of conflating the two? > The benefit is to keep `fill-paragraph' as the name of the command > that M-q runs. That name is better even though it now has the feature > of doing something different for certain interactive calls. > The complexity added to `fill-paragraph' is a handful of lines. > Not significant. OK, actually the consistency with the other commands that obey the region (if transient-mark-mode is set and the region is active) is a good argument. Stefan