GNU bug report logs - #77857
[PATCH] Let eww-copy-page-url append to existing kill

Previous Next

Full log

View this message in rfc822 format

From: James Thomas <jimjoe <at> gmx.net>
To: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
Cc: stefankangas <at> gmail.com, 77857 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: bug#77857: [PATCH] Let eww-copy-page-url append to existing kill, Re: bug#77857: [PATCH] Let eww-copy-page-url append to existing kill
Date: Sun, 20 Apr 2025 12:43:10 +0530

James Thomas writes:

> Eli Zaretskii writes:
>
>>> From: James Thomas
>>> Cc: Eli Zaretskii,  77857 <at> 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')

Okay, I think I see what you mean: Are you talking about a 'C-w' on form
field text? If so, the user will have to move out of the field before
typing 'w' again: So it'll never be 'last-command', no?

--

Previous Next

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