GNU bug report logs - #38392
zap-up-to-char should appear in "Deletion and Killing" Emacs info section and "Command Index"

Previous Next

Full log

View this message in rfc822 format

From: Justin Paston-Cooper <paston.cooper <at> gmail.com>
To: Drew Adams <drew.adams <at> oracle.com>
Cc: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>, 38392 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: bug#38392: zap-up-to-char should appear in "Deletion and Killing" Emacs info section and "Command Index"
Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2019 23:10:14 +0100

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

On Wed, 27 Nov 2019 at 22:46, Drew Adams <drew.adams <at> oracle.com> wrote:

> > I suppose you’re saying that exactly two ‘inclusivities’ suffice: ‘up
> to/until’ and 'through' in your case, which makes complete sense.
>
> I wasn't speaking to what might suffice.  I was just
> pointing out that we use `up-to' for zapping and `until' for searching -
> and we mean the same thing by them.  And I mentioned `through' as a
> possible name for including the final char.


>
> > I have found that both 'up to' and 'until' are still ambiguous, for
> instance when trying to agree on a date with someone. This ambiguity might
> carry over to the Emacs world, where a user might not know that there is
> another distinct inclusivity called 'through'. 'up to' and 'until' can mean
> either 'inclusive' or 'exclusive', this seemingly depending on the phase of
> the Moon. I still use the words 'inclusive' and 'exclusive' to confirm. I
> hope that at least programmers don't find that silly. Of course, there is
> an existing precedent of 'up to', 'until', 'through' and 'to'.
>
> Yes, the terms are ambiguous.  If we use consistent
> names and the doc is clear then I don't think there's
> a problem in practice.  But yes, in conversation,
> and particularly with dates/times, people can need
> to discuss a bit to be sure to be on the same page.


Fair enough.


>
> > Regardless of the naming, wouldn’t an inclusivity modifier over the set
> of two inclusivities be a nice thing to have?
>
> No idea.  Modifier where?  Here we're talking about
> function names.  I don't think we need to or should
> add such a thing to the names.


> The idea was that there could be a key combination entered before commands
related to movement, killing, searching and so on which would pass an
argument to those commands determining their inclusivity. Similar to the
idea behind T and t in viper-mode. Not sure how it would tie in with the
numerical argument, though.

[Message part 2 (text/html, inline)]

Previous Next

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