RE: [External] : Re: Change default behavior of some commands that act on region?

[Drew Adams]

> > Would you argue that there are _no_ such commands that
> > could benefit from considering the t-m-m ON case?
> 
> That's a far cry from what you actually wrote, to
> what I responded.

No, it is what I actually wrote.  I suggested that
"some" (SOME) such commands "might" (MIGHT) "benefit".
And after your reactions I repeated that I suggested
exactly that, to make it crystal clear.

The opposite of accepting that SOME such commands
might benefit is to claim that NONE could benefit.

You haven't actually answered the question.  Is that
what you think: that none could possibly benefit from
such consideration?  If not, then you must agree with
me that _some_ could.

You often manage to take things personally, it seems.
Saying that some _commands_ haven't yet awakened to
handle taking t-m-m into account is only saying that
they haven't been updated to take t-m-m into account.

It says nothing about "the Emacs developers", and
certainly not that they are "obtuse or worse".  Is it
possible to point to areas of possible improvement
for Emacs without being accused of attacking you?

There are many such commands.  Maybe there are only
a few that, upon consideration, we would want to
update.  Who knows, without considering?  Anyway,
changing definitions of individual commands is, as
I said, outside the proposal of this thread.

The connection to this thread is that there are
commands that might well be doing something less
than ideal in t-m-m with an inactive region, and
the proposal is about a general way to handle some
of that.

(And to be clear, Alan, even actually updating a
command definition to take t-m-m into account
doesn't imply changing any behavior for when t-m-m
is OFF.)