Re: C-d deleting region considered harmful

[Chad Brown]

On Sep 20, 2010, at 6:03 PM, Miles Bader wrote:
> It's true, that my claim is "just my claim" -- but on the other hand
> so is yours (it doesn't seem any more logically consistent). 

True enough.  My opinions on `expected behavior' are perhaps better
described ``what I believe new users who start with modern GUI's
(Gnome/KDE/MacOSX/Winwhatever) are more likely to expect, based on a
pretty small sample size'', which is indeed `suspect' by itself.

>> I suggest adding a flag to invert the default meaning of ARG in
>> exchange-point-and-mark, at least as an experiment.  I suspect that
>> the new behavior would be more in line with expected behavior for most
>> people, but it'd be hard to determine, and it seems reasonable to
>> default to the existing behavior in such a situation.
> 
> Er, how about a bit more basis than "I suspect" first...

Probably I should have emphasized the ``as an experiment'' part more.
That's my fault; I had originally intended to include a patch to try, then
something came up that caused me to not have as much time as I'd
expected so I quickly rewrote the email and sent it.  I wasn't suggesting
that we change the default for everyone and see what happens, but
it certainly could be read that way.

I'm using such a simple patch now, but I don't believe that it will do
the right thing in the face of t-m-m being enabled/disabled, so I'm
holding out for more time or for someone else to create and send a 
better experimental candidate.  At that point, I'd hope to get some of 
the list stalwarts who dislike t-m-m to potentially give it a try and see
if it's better, worse, or indistinct.   

Sorry for any confusion.
*Chad