GNU bug report logs - #11680
flyspell should use mouse-3 instead of mouse-2

Previous Next

Package: emacs;

Reported by: Le Wang <l26wang <at> gmail.com>

Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2012 12:28:01 UTC

Severity: minor

Fixed in version 28.1

Done: Stefan Kangas <stefan <at> marxist.se>

Bug is archived. No further changes may be made.

Full log


Message #26 received at 11680 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Stefan Kangas <stefan <at> marxist.se>
To: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
Cc: 11680 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, l26wang <at> gmail.com
Subject: Re: bug#11680: flyspell should use mouse-3 instead of mouse-2
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2020 23:10:11 -0700
Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org> writes:

>> From: Stefan Kangas <stefan <at> marxist.se>
>> Cc: 11680 <at> debbugs.gnu.org,  l26wang <at> gmail.com
>> Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2020 02:50:19 +0100
>>
>> > Fine with me, but that button is already bound to
>> > mouse-save-then-kill.  I never use it, but what will those who do say?
>>
>> Since this key binding is only in flyspell-mouse-map, it will only be
>> rebound when the mouse pointer is over a misspelled word.  Note that
>> mouse-2 is normally bound to mouse-yank-primary.
>
> I don't see how this resolves the backward-compatibility issue, sorry.

Sorry for the very late reply here.

The change in behaviour is what it is, but I think that users should be
able to get used to the new behaviour.

In fact, they might even like it more.  I think there is something to be
said about (in this case) aligning ourselves with most other editors or
programs people use: Firefox, LibreOffice, VSCode, etc.

(This goes even for users that don't read NEWS: The words are clearly
highlighted, so it should be intuitive and apparent what is going on (at
least after a while): to invoke mouse-save-then-kill, simply click
slightly to the left or right of the highlighted word.)

> Once again, we are not talking about adding a new feature from
> scratch, we are talking about changing a very old behavior.  So
> whether it's more natural or not is of secondary importance for this
> decision.
>
> I'm okay with making this conditional on some user option, but I
> object to an unconditional change.

That is a good solution, if the default is to enable it.  That would
allow users to easily switch back if they don't like the new behaviour.

Best regards,
Stefan Kangas




This bug report was last modified 4 years and 332 days ago.

Previous Next


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