[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 16:28:01 +0300

> From: Lars Ingebrigtsen <address@hidden>
> Cc: address@hidden,  address@hidden
> Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2016 14:48:39 +0200
> Eli Zaretskii <address@hidden> writes:
> >> 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
> > me?
> Well, the problem was that mark-whole-buffer marked the prompt in the
> minibuffer.  :-)

And why is that a problem?  The prompt _is_ part of the buffer text.

> >> 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?
> I think we must be miscommunicating.  On the one hand you seem to be
> suggesting that we should make the prompt more special than it is now,
> and on the other hand, you seem to be suggesting that we shouldn't,
> because we haven't for eons?

I didn't suggest any changes, no.  The prompt is special, but it
doesn't need to be more so.

reply via email to

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