[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: Recent commit modifying mark-whole-buffer (master/aeb613ea95b7970e66

From: Eli Zaretskii
Subject: Re: Recent commit modifying mark-whole-buffer (master/aeb613ea95b7970e66d663ec5cba54e9ec0528fa)
Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2016 15:41:38 +0300

> From: Lars Ingebrigtsen <address@hidden>
> Cc: Stephan Mueller <address@hidden>,  address@hidden
> Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2016 14:23:13 +0200
> Eli Zaretskii <address@hidden> writes:
> > The initial message in bug #21874 provides no rationale for the
> > request (which seems to be a feature request, not a bug that needs to
> > be fixed).  So I'm not sure why we want to make such significant
> > changes in behavior due to that bug report.
> I assumed it was an uncontroversial fix -- there are many commands that
> work differently in the minibuffer exactly because we don't want to
> include the prompt.

Fix of what problem?  I was saying that the problem is not clear to

> > Do I understand correctly that the proposed change will disallow doing
> > that, without some complicated operations that many users won't even
> > know about?  If so, I object.
> I don't quite follow.  If you want to mark the prompt, there's a
> gazillion ways of doing that, including `C-u C-a C-<SPC>'.  Or just hold
> down `<left>'.  :-)

Are we mis-communicating?  I thought the suggestion on the table, to
which I objected, was to make the prompt have a property that would
preclude doing all these things.

> (By the way, I think it would be nice if `<left>' didn't enter the
> prompt.)

And I don't understand why you think so.  We were allowed to do so for
eons, why suddenly change that?

reply via email to

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