[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: C-x C-x (was: C-d deleting region considered harmful)
From: |
Andrew W. Nosenko |
Subject: |
Re: C-x C-x (was: C-d deleting region considered harmful) |
Date: |
Tue, 21 Sep 2010 04:06:13 +0300 |
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>
- RE: C-d deleting region considered harmful, (continued)
- Re: C-d deleting region considered harmful, Chad Brown, 2010/09/20
- C-x C-x (was: C-d deleting region considered harmful), Stefan Monnier, 2010/09/20
- Re: C-x C-x (was: C-d deleting region considered harmful), Chad Brown, 2010/09/20
- Re: C-x C-x, Chong Yidong, 2010/09/20
- Re: C-x C-x, Johan Bockgård, 2010/09/21
- Re: C-x C-x (was: C-d deleting region considered harmful), Andrew W. Nosenko, 2010/09/20
- Re: C-x C-x (was: C-d deleting region considered harmful),
Andrew W. Nosenko <=
- Re: C-x C-x, David Kastrup, 2010/09/21
- Re: C-x C-x, Andrew W. Nosenko, 2010/09/21
- Re: C-x C-x, David Kastrup, 2010/09/21
- Re: C-x C-x, Andrew W. Nosenko, 2010/09/24
- Re: C-x C-x (was: C-d deleting region considered harmful), Thierry Volpiatto, 2010/09/21
- Re: C-d deleting region considered harmful, Miles Bader, 2010/09/20
- Re: C-d deleting region considered harmful, Chad Brown, 2010/09/21
- Re: C-d deleting region considered harmful, Eli Zaretskii, 2010/09/19
- Re: C-d deleting region considered harmful, Alan Mackenzie, 2010/09/19
- Re: C-d deleting region considered harmful, Sebastian Rose, 2010/09/19