Re: Shift selection using interactive spec

[David Kastrup]

Chong Yidong <address@hidden> writes:

> Richard Stallman <address@hidden> writes:
>
>>     It'd be a disaster to have to restate the whole command or even just the 
>>     interactive spec to make commands CUA-mode aware.  Right now, if I am 
>>     using an external package that is not fully CUA-mode aware (like 
>>     CC-mode), all I need to do is:
>>
>> That is a valid point -- it is useful to be able to patch an external
>> library command by adding a property.
>>
>> However, for writing commands in Emacs, I think the cleanest way
>> is to use the interactive spec.
>>
>> So I think we should support both ways, but prefer the interactive
>> spec.
>
> Yeah.
>
> So I suppose precedence would be given to the interactive spec; if the ^
> code is not present, we'd check the `handle-shift-selection' property.
> Also, to support an easy way of turning off shift selection in commands,
> a value of (say) `off' in the `handle-shift-selection' property would
> mean to avoid doing shift selection (otherwise, we wouldn't be able to
> tell whether `handle-shift-selection' nil means the property hasn't been
> defined, or whether the user wants to turn shift-selection off).
>
> We would probably need a global variable to turn off shift-selection for
> all commands too.
>
> WDYT?

I think it nonsensical to have a particular special way to alter a lot
of commands individually in just one aspect.

If the functionality is as annoying when being switched on as to warrant
per-function fine-tuning, we should tone down the obnoxious parts.

Do you have an example for a function which should by default obey
shift-selection, but where a user would rather have it turned off?

-- 
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum