Eli Zaretskii writes:

>> From: James Thomas
>> Cc: stefankangas@gmail.com,  77857@debbugs.gnu.org
>> Date: Sun, 20 Apr 2025 12:29:39 +0530
>> 
>> Eli Zaretskii writes:
>> 
>> >> From: James Thomas
>> >> Cc: Eli Zaretskii,  77857@debbugs.gnu.org
>> >> Date: Sat, 19 Apr 2025 14:54:27 +0530
>> >> 
>> >> Stefan Kangas writes:
>> >> 
>> >> > Makes sense to me, but I think we should make it optional somehow.  It's
>> >> > not the typical use case, and it changes current behavior.
>> >> 
>> >> Eli Zaretskii writes:
>> >> 
>> >> > That's an incompatible change in behavior, no?
>> >> 
>> >> Well... no (isn't it?). It only happens with 'C-M-w' before 'w', which
>> >> currently has no effect: (info "(emacs) Appending Kills").
>> >
>> > That's the change: previously Emacs produced different results in this
>> > case.  People might not expect the 'w' command to do that, they might
>> > expect that their previous kill remains intact.
>> 
>> No, I mean, they'd _have_ to press 'C-M-w' for that to happen, right
>> before the 'w' - which they'd do only if they wanted this.
>> 
>> I think we're miscommunicating:
>> 
>>   Previously: C-M-w w: A simple copy (so no one would type the C-M-w).
>>   Now:        C-M-w w: Appended to the previous kill.
>> 
>> (There's no change in 'w's behaviour without an immediately preceding
>> 'C-M-w')
>
> What I have in mind is the sequence "M-w w" or "C-w w".  AFAIU,
> previously, 'w' would start a new kill-ring entry, but with your
> suggestion it will append to whatever C-w/M-w killed before it.
> Right?

The first wouldn't, because 'M-w' is not 'kill-region', and for the
second, one would have to _move out_ of the form field (where the 'C-w'
happened) before pressing 'w'.

But indeed, when I came up with this I hadn't thought of the situation
where 'w' is rebound to a key-chord, perhaps, so that it could be typed
immediately after, in the latter case above. So the question now is
whether it's even desirable in such a (IMO, rare) case. If so, here's an
updated patch with a News entry.