Re: C-x C-x (was: C-d deleting region considered harmful)

[Andrew W. Nosenko]

On Tue, Sep 21, 2010 at 03:28, Andrew W. Nosenko
<address@hidden> wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 21, 2010 at 01:09, Stefan Monnier <address@hidden> wrote:
>> Now for the spinoff thread that keeps spinning off other ones: I'd be
>> willing to decouple C-x C-x from "(re)activate the region", but then we
>> need to find some other way to reactivate the region.
>> Suggestions welcome.  Of course there's C-u C-x C-x, but I don't find it
>> very appealing (just like C-u C-x C-x doesn't sound too appealing to
>> people who currently want to exchange-mark-and-point without activating
>> the region).
>
> About stop activating region by C-x C-x.  I'm (of course) unable to
> speak for anyone who uses t-m-m, but for me C-x C-x, same as C-x C-x
> C-x C-x is intentionally thing for activating region.  And usual goal
> is to send this region to the external filter (as in C-x C-x C-u M-|).
>  Just depending on goals I want to start review or editing of results
> from top or from bottom and therefore use 2 or 4 C-x.  And it is
> simple and logical: exchange point and mark and activate region, just
> repeated twice if need (thanks to "activate" instead of "toggle"
> semantics).  Now it may be transformed to exchange and some when
> latter activate.  What if I hit C-x yet another 2 times?  Continue to
> activate region?  Start to toggle?  Start to toggle every 2nd (even)
> pair of C-x and do nothing on every 1st (odd) pair of C-x?  Something
> another?
>
> Again, please excuse me, I have no intention to insult anyone
> personally or as group.  I just argue that here are many things.  And
> logical consistence is not the least of them.  Just because decreases
> learning curve (in short term) and keeps productivity in the long
> term.  And it is just from user's point of view, without counting the
> Emacs developers convenience and time (any inconsistency produces
> exceptional cases, any exceptional case produces special control flow
> branch, any (especially irrational) branch is the source for errors or
> at least brain resources eater).

Just for clarity: it was about "don't activate region on 1st C-x C-x
and activate it on 2nd C-x C-x".  Reading the Chong Yidong's "C-x C-x"
e-mail hinted me that you meant replace C-x C-x binding from "exchange
and activate" to "just exchange" and introduce the new "just activate"
key binding.  Sorry for misunderstanding. :-(

-- 
Andrew W. Nosenko <address@hidden>