[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: delete-selection-mode

From: David Kastrup
Subject: Re: delete-selection-mode
Date: Fri, 19 Mar 2010 09:07:29 +0100
User-agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.1.92 (gnu/linux)

"Drew Adams" <address@hidden> writes:

>> >> With transient-mark-mode, it will be active by default, 
>> >> even when you just wanted to manipulate the mark.
>> >
>> > C-u C-SPC instead of C-SPC. Or just turn off t-m-mode.
>> If you can't remember, a newbie would?
> a. Your citation is off. Presumably, you meant to quote Stefan correcting my
> mention of C-u C-SPC instead of C-SPC C-SPC. Ever type one thing and think
> another? Mea culpa - I did.
> b. I don't actually use C-SPC C-SPC. I don't use the "temporary
> transient-mark-mode" (or its opposite). Ever. But you might want to.
> I use `delete-selection-mode' - that's it. If I ever need to deactivate the
> region, I use C-g. I've used d-s-mode for decades - long before any temporary
> t-m-mode existed.

Then perhaps you should leave the discussion until those that remember
life without delete-selection-mode have sorted out the problems with
making it the default.

The Emacs way of getting a feature activated by default is not throwing
a tantrum until everybody gives in, but making the feature work smoothly
with other use cases and workflows.

That is the way to overcome resistance.  Throwing tantrums, in contrast,
distracts from the work, thoughts, and discussions that are needed to
properly make a feature fit in as a part with the rest of Emacs.

Your point is abundantly clear: "I want delete-selection-mode enabled
and nothing else changed".  Everybody got it by now.  Repeating it
without reacting to anything other people bring up is not going to help
resolve those points.

So you might want to stay off this discussion for a week or so and see
whether people make progress with plans about moving Emacs towards a
state where delete-selection-mode as a default is less of a bad idea as
it is now.  It is obvious that you are not wanting to participate in any
such discussion in a constructive way.

David Kastrup

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]