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: [PATCH] Let input queue deal gracefully with up-events Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2015 22:57:03 -0500 Message-ID: References: <1422451883-6530-1-git-send-email-dak@gnu.org> <874mrapkt9.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1422503846 1569 80.91.229.3 (29 Jan 2015 03:57:26 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2015 03:57:26 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org To: David Kastrup Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Thu Jan 29 04:57:26 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 1YGgEP-0000Jm-E1 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 29 Jan 2015 04:57:25 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:57568 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1YGgEO-000894-CY for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 28 Jan 2015 22:57:24 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:59249) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1YGgED-00085t-No for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 28 Jan 2015 22:57:21 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1YGgE6-00080z-A0 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 28 Jan 2015 22:57:13 -0500 Original-Received: from chene.dit.umontreal.ca ([132.204.246.20]:46789) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1YGgE6-00080v-6G; Wed, 28 Jan 2015 22:57:06 -0500 Original-Received: from ceviche.home (lechon.iro.umontreal.ca [132.204.27.242]) by chene.dit.umontreal.ca (8.14.1/8.14.1) with ESMTP id t0T3v3vh032558; Wed, 28 Jan 2015 22:57:04 -0500 Original-Received: by ceviche.home (Postfix, from userid 20848) id C5E9366100; Wed, 28 Jan 2015 22:57:03 -0500 (EST) In-Reply-To: <874mrapkt9.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> (David Kastrup's message of "Thu, 29 Jan 2015 00:06:10 +0100") 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 RV5200=0 X-NAI-Spam-Version: 2.3.0.9393 : core <5200> : inlines <1982> : streams <1381146> : uri <1844220> 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:181957 Archived-At: > Well, it is not really comparable since down-xxx + up-xxx for the mouse > are combined into one xxx or drag-xxx event. That's one way to look at it. If you look at it w.r.t XEmacs, where they have `button1' and `button1up' (IIRC), I prefer to consider that our `mouse-1' is an up event (and we simply define the click as happening on the up event). The point here is just that the way the comment is written makes it sound like we'd throw away all events (both up and down), whereas we only throw away the "companion event" (either the up or the down one, depending on the specific kind of event). Stefan