GNU bug report logs - #60646
28.2; delete-selection-mode

Previous Next

Full log

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

From: Kévin Le Gouguec <kevin.legouguec <at> gmail.com>
To: Po Lu via "Bug reports for GNU Emacs, the Swiss army knife of text
 editors" <bug-gnu-emacs <at> gnu.org>
Cc: Po Lu <luangruo <at> yahoo.com>, "Redekopp, Eric" <err291 <at> mail.usask.ca>,
 "60646 <at> debbugs.gnu.org" <60646 <at> debbugs.gnu.org>,
 Drew Adams <drew.adams <at> oracle.com>
Subject: Re: bug#60646: 28.2; delete-selection-mode
Date: Sat, 14 Jan 2023 12:51:57 +0100

Po Lu via "Bug reports for GNU Emacs, the Swiss army knife of text
editors" <bug-gnu-emacs <at> gnu.org> writes:

> Drew Adams <drew.adams <at> oracle.com> writes:
>
>>> I would like to express my strong support
>>> for enabling delete-selection-mode by default.
>>> This is standard for almost all other text
>>> applications and feels unintuitive not to have it.
>>
>> +1.  I've advocated the same for decades.
>>
>> This should have happened when we turned on
>> `transient-mark-mode' by default.  And both
>> of those default-behavior changes should
>> really have happened long before that.
>
> I disagree, but we've had this argument before, so please just leave
> things as they are.
>
> Thanks.

Did we ever go through the length of making the sort of poll we had for
show-paren-mode?  I.e.

* deciding to poll users on emacs-devel,
  <E1mN4xu-0004y3-63 <at> fencepost.gnu.org>

* announcing on info-gnu-emacs,
  <62f50784-593d-b302-b8b6-6d614ec37737 <at> yandex.ru>

* collecting feedback on gnu-emacs-help,
  <9bc33df8-5c1b-cd82-f72e-6fc939990f37 <at> yandex.ru>

* debriefing on emacs-devel.
  <2aed65dd-bcec-8e0e-e48b-7664a041f98b <at> yandex.ru>

Asking because

a) delete-selection-mode sounds (IMO) like one of these options that
meet the sweet (sour?) spot between triggering strong opinions ("Thou
Shalt Not Change Longſtanding Defaults", "But All Other Editors Do It",
"It Is Surprising And Destructive", "It Is Natural And Convenient"),
while being trivial to change in one's config either way,

b) For all the hassle it might have been, the poll and discussion around
it led to improvements to show-paren-mode, i.e. further fine-tuning of
the defaults.


I struggle to imagine how (b) could apply to delete-selection-mode, but
then again my imagination is very limited.  OTOH (a) might provide
enough justification for a poll, especially when coupled with the
recurring traffic that delete-selection-mode generates.

(Thinking of e.g. these emacs-devel megathreads:
 * <CAM-tV-8HZKJ9WKHXR0h8FC_Qv8YhjdAPYikcviD2HAUo6Msg4g <at> mail.gmail.com>
   (2018)
 * <20100318185435.GB1522 <at> muc.de>
   (2010)

 Oh hey, well, (b) might not be off the table after all:

 > The _only_ problem I personally have with delete-selection-mode is
 > that it also replaces the region created by the likes of "C-x C-x",
 > something that "most software out there" does not and cannot do.  If
 > we were to change delete-selection-mode to replace only highlighted
 > text created by mouse selections or by shift-selections, I think we
 > could then enable it by default without much resistance, because
 > typing a character or DEL after explicitly selecting text is many
 > orders of magnitude less probable to be a mistake than when we make
 > the region active by other means.
 — <83o9d5q1bi.fsf <at> gnu.org>

 Enlightening; I personally C-x C-x C-g without a second thought when
 all I want is to "jump to mark" (or I use C-u C-SPC).  I use C-x C-x
 mostly for its region-activating effect (typically after C-y), rather
 than for its point-mark-swap effect, and I expect delete-selection-mode
 to clobber stuff I highlight with region-activating commands (C-M-SPC,
 C-x h, C-M-h, M-h, C-SPC + [move around]).

 But I understand how adding an option to control that would make sense)

Previous Next

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