Re: Shift selection using interactive spec

[David Kastrup]

Thomas Lord <address@hidden> writes:

> David Kastrup wrote:
>
>> I have to say that nothing so far indicates that your proposed
>> "tentative mark" would differ from the current behavior of "transient
>> marks".
>
> Um.  Ok, take a buffer of text.  M-x transient-mark-mode.  Set a mark.
> Move a bit with C-n.  Now hit G-g.
>
> The region is now "deactivated," sure.   But type C-xC-x:
> the mark you set is still there.  A *tentative* mark would
> be completely wiped out by the C-g.

That is basically just a matter of semantics.  The command "C-x C-x" can
be thought of as setting the mark at point, and moving point where a
mark had been last.

> I've described why about 3 times already.  Tentative marks always go
> away unless the user uses a key-sequence that preserves them or the
> command the user invokes is a rare variety that explicitly preserves
> it.

So the "advantage" of your "tentative mark" would be that "C-x C-x" now
beeps and does nothing.  What does that buy the user?

> (I think if you look back at history you'll discover that
> transient-mark-mode was actually a mistake.  It was
> in effect a crude attempt to hack around the lack of
> "tentative marks".   People were confused but were happy
> that transient-mark-mode seemed to mostly highlight regions
> and mostly work like other GUIs, at least in simple cases).
> Tentative marks capture the familiar semantics much more
> precisely than transient ones.

By making it impossible to recreate a mark where one had been last time?
What's the advantage in providing strictly less functionality?

> Having looked at it more closely now, I would even suggest that
> transient-mark-mode be deprecated (as in dis-recommended for use and
> of low priority for compatibility, going forward).)

I don't get your point.  You basically want to remove functionality and
sell this as an advantage under a different name.

-- 
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum