Re: Remove delete-overlay?

[Stephen J. Turnbull]

Robert J. Chassell writes:

 > Interesting!  As a native English speaker, the second meaning is
 > relevant.  I have never heard of the first, although it makes sense
 > etymologically, as in `move again'!

Actually, I suspect you have: "removal service" (British term, I
think), "cousin once removed", "remove from consideration" (ie,
table), "remove an obstacle", "at a remove" (ie, detached), "remove
that apostate from our presence".  Replace "remove" with "eliminate"
in those phrases, and they become rather more bloodthirsty, don't you
think?

I think the connotation is "moving away" (to somewhere), including the
possibility of moving back.  Delete implies a return is irrelevant, or
perhaps impossible (viz, kill-OBJECT vs delete-OBJECT in Emacs).

Granted the usages are rather idiomatic, at least in American English,
but nonetheless I have to agree with the European consensus that the
connotations are different in a way relevant to the discussion.

 > I would use a word such as `move' or `detach'.

FWIW, XEmacs uses detach for the analogous function, `detach-extent'.
`delete-extent' also exists, which detaches the extent but has
additional semantics.  So I hope that (if the name changes)
`detach-overlay' will be chosen.