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

[Drew Adams]

> > > Indeed, it is important to keep full support for configs 
> > > where `transient-mark-mode` is disabled.  Not only many 
> > > users prefer such a config, but as you mention, there are 
> > > also cases where such a config is not just a question of 
> > > taste.
> >
> > Yes, and this is irrelevant to this thread, as the
                                ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> > proposed change has no effect on users who disable
> > `transient-mark-mode'.  They continue to have "full
> > support".
>
> The issue you consider "irrelevant" is actually quite relevant,

I didn't say that support for use of t-m-mode OFF is
irrelevant.  It's very relevant to Emacs.  But it's not
relevant to the proposal of this thread, which has NO
effect on that use case.  That's the point.  Please
don't twist what's been said.  You're arguing against
a straw man.

I've written carefully and clearly, from the outset, that
this proposal has NO effect on that use case.  Yet you've
insisted on pursuing it for supposedly ignoring, or even
inflicting damage, on that case.  Please stop.  There's
nothing relevant about insisting on needing to protect
the t-m-mode OFF case against this proposal, as there's
no threat to it.

> because commands that behave differently depending on whether
> transient-mark-mode is on or off are a source of confusion and
> frustration.  We shouldn't enlarge the number of such commands
> willy-nilly.

Every command that tests `use-region-p' and does something
different depending on the value does something different
depending on whether t-m-mode is on or off, simply because
when it's off there's no notion of active/inactive region
- there's just the region.

t-m-mode's raison d'etre is to be able to do something
when the user sees the selected text highlighted and not
otherwise.  That distinction is what it's all about.