GNU bug report logs - #10899
24.0.93; c-forward-conditional should not move the mark

Previous Next

Full log

Message #14 received at 10899 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Dani Moncayo <dmoncayo <at> gmail.com>
To: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
Cc: 10899 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#10899: 24.0.93; c-forward-conditional should not move the mark
Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2012 21:59:45 +0100

>> What does "leaving mark behind" mean exactly here?  It seem to mean
>> "setting the mark at point, and then moving the point".  At least it
>> is the behavior I observe.
>
> What else could it possibly mean?

I don't know, but "to leave X behind" does not imply to move "X" from
its original position.  So this wording seems confusing to me.

>> But this behavior is undesirable (IMO - this is a movement command.
>> whats the point of setting the mark here?)
>
> A conditional could, and frequently does, enclose a large portion of
> the code.  Leaving the mark where you were lets you get back there
> with "C-x C-x", obviously, which is a convenience.  In general, Emacs
> commands that could potentially move a long way leave the mark behind.
>
>> and inconsistent with analogous movement commands such as
>> `forward-list'.
>
> There's no need for consistency in all movement commands.  In
> particular, those that generally move short distances need not behave
> the same as the other kind.
>

Consistency is a good design principle to follow, unless there is good
reason not to.  And frankly, I don't see a good reason here.

> And you have "C-u C-c C-n" to do what you want.

And if "C-c C-n" didn't set the mark, you would have "C-SPC C-c C-n"
to do what you want.

-- 
Dani Moncayo

Previous Next

GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham, 1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd, 1994-97 Ian Jackson.