Re: [External] : Re: Change default behavior of some commands that act on region?

[T.V Raman]

Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> writes:


Douglas Adams in HHG (a source of universal wisdom from my perspective):
If someone were to explain how the universe works, it'll immediately
disappear and be replaced by one that is even more inexplicable.

There are some who believe this has already happened.


> Hello, Drew.
>
> On Sun, May 23, 2021 at 14:28:35 +0000, Drew Adams wrote:
>> > > > Indeed, it is important to keep full support for configs 
>> > > > where `transient-mark-mode` is disabled.  Not only many 
>> > > > users prefer such a config, but as you mention, there are 
>> > > > also cases where such a config is not just a question of 
>> > > > taste.
>
>> > > Yes, and this is irrelevant to this thread, as the
>> > >                             ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> > > proposed change has no effect on users who disable
>> > > `transient-mark-mode'.  They continue to have "full
>> > > support".
>
> First of all, I haven't followed this thread in all its details, so far.
> That said, I think your above point is a little naive.  I also have
> transient-mark-mode disabled, I run with "GUI disabled", and run with
> "minibuffer-only frames disabled".
>
> I am very wary of changes which balkanise Emacs.  Every change which only
> works with some options, or which works differently depending on options
> which aren't specifically configuring that thing, makes Emacs more of a
> tangled mess.  (Not that I'm saying it already is such a mess, but we
> want to avoid making it so.)
>
>> > The issue you consider "irrelevant" is actually quite relevant,
>
>> I didn't say that support for use of t-m-mode OFF is
>> irrelevant.  It's very relevant to Emacs.  But it's not
>> relevant to the proposal of this thread, which has NO
>> effect on that use case.  That's the point.  Please
>> don't twist what's been said.  You're arguing against
>> a straw man.
>
> I think you're proposing to make some functions (have you said exactly
> which ones, yet?) behave differently in t-m-m.  That _is_ of concern to
> everybody, including those who run with t-m-m disabled.
>
>> I've written carefully and clearly, from the outset, that
>> this proposal has NO effect on that use case.  Yet you've
>> insisted on pursuing it for supposedly ignoring, or even
>> inflicting damage, on that case.  Please stop.  There's
>> nothing relevant about insisting on needing to protect
>> the t-m-mode OFF case against this proposal, as there's
>> no threat to it.
>
> There have been features in the past introduced as "optional" into Emacs,
> followed some time later by pressure to conform with these "optional"
> features.  You can't blame people for feeling uneasy about this proposal.
>
> There might well have been an understanding in the past that t-m-m would
> not be forced any further into Emacs than it is already.  If that is the
> case, your proposal would be a violation of that understanding and an
> example of the pressure I refer to above.
>
>> > because commands that behave differently depending on whether
>> > transient-mark-mode is on or off are a source of confusion and
>> > frustration.  We shouldn't enlarge the number of such commands
>> > willy-nilly.
>
>> Every command that tests `use-region-p' and does something
>> different depending on the value does something different
>> depending on whether t-m-mode is on or off, simply because
>> when it's off there's no notion of active/inactive region
>> - there's just the region.
>
>> t-m-mode's raison d'etre is to be able to do something
>> when the user sees the selected text highlighted and not
>> otherwise.  That distinction is what it's all about.
>
> Yes.  But I think adding things into "something" to make it "something
> else as well" needs to be justified case by case.

-- 

Thanks,

--Raman(I Search, I Find, I Misplace, I Research)
?7?4 Id: kg:/m/0285kf1  ?0?8