Re: Shift selection using interactive spec

[Thomas Lord]

David Kastrup wrote:
> Thomas Lord <address@hidden> writes:
>
>   
> > Please don't be snarky.  I don't spell well.  I am quite literate, I
> > think.  I chose the word "tentative" precisely to draw a subtle
> > distinction from "transient" regarding their ordinary english meanings
> > as good analogies for the technical distinction I was drawing.  I'm
> > sorry to have to say so but I am insulted.
> >     
>
> I have to say that nothing so far indicates that your proposed
> "tentative mark" would differ from the current behavior of "transient
> marks".  

Um.    Ok, take a buffer of text.   M-x transient-mark-mode.
Set a mark.   Move a bit with C-n.  Now hit G-g.

The region is now "deactivated," sure.   But type C-xC-x:
the mark you set is still there.  A *tentative* mark would
be completely wiped out by the C-g.   I've described why
about 3 times already.   Tentative marks always go away
unless the user uses a key-sequence that preserves them or
the command the user invokes is a rare variety that explicitly
preserves it.

(I think if you look back at history you'll discover that
transient-mark-mode was actually a mistake.  It was
in effect a crude attempt to hack around the lack of
"tentative marks".   People were confused but were happy
that transient-mark-mode seemed to mostly highlight regions
and mostly work like other GUIs, at least in simple cases).
Tentative marks capture the familiar semantics much more
precisely than transient ones.   Having looked at it more
closely now, I would even suggest that transient-mark-mode
be deprecated (as in dis-recommended for use and of low
priority for compatibility, going forward).)


-t