From xemacs-m  Wed Jun  4 18:46:39 1997
Received: from mercury.Sun.COM (mercury.Sun.COM [192.9.25.1])
	by xemacs.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id SAA01081
	for <xemacs-beta@xemacs.org>; Wed, 4 Jun 1997 18:46:38 -0500 (CDT)
Received: from Corp.Sun.COM ([129.145.35.78]) by mercury.Sun.COM (SMI-8.6/mail.byaddr) with SMTP id RAA29416; Wed, 4 Jun 1997 17:04:37 -0700
Received: from legba.Corp.Sun.COM by Corp.Sun.COM (SMI-8.6/SMI-5.3)
	id QAA14598; Wed, 4 Jun 1997 16:46:56 -0700
Received: by legba.Corp.Sun.COM (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
	id QAA14692; Wed, 4 Jun 1997 16:46:54 -0700
To: Glynn Clements <glynn@sensei.co.uk>
Cc: XEmacs Developers <xemacs-beta@xemacs.org>
Subject: Re: cc-mode delete behavior [PATCH]
References: <bcipvu2pbof.fsf@corp.Sun.COM> 	<kiglo4qjjgt.fsf@jagor.srce.hr> 	<bciiuzuqjae.fsf@corp.Sun.COM> 	<kighgfejhf5.fsf@jagor.srce.hr> <199706042305.AAA01342@cerise.sensei.co.uk>
X-Attribution: GDF
Mime-Version: 1.0 (generated by tm-edit 7.106)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
From: Gary.Foster@Corp.Sun.COM (Gary D. Foster)
Date: 04 Jun 1997 16:46:54 -0700
In-Reply-To: Glynn Clements's message of Thu, 5 Jun 1997 00:05:06 +0100
Message-ID: <bci4tbeorrl.fsf@corp.Sun.COM>
Lines: 35
X-Mailer: Gnus v5.4.55/XEmacs 20.3(beta3)

Glynn Clements <glynn@sensei.co.uk> writes:

> I think that it's improved upon the previous situation of choosing
> between a 120 package (delbackspace) which tries to untangle the
> equivalance assumed by many different packages, and a quick fix
> (delbs) which has some irritating side effects (like Delete -> EOF).
> 
> I still think the neatest solution at the package level is for an
> author to have a keysym that can have forward deletion functions bound
> to it unconditionally, via define-key.

I agree whole-heartedly with this.  That's the whole heart of the
"\177" versus 'delete discussion between Hrvoje and I, and you've
managed to cut through all the rhetoric to phrase it much better than
I could.

My only concern though, with binding this keysym to the delete _key_ is
how do you reconcile this with the fact that some people want the
delete key to erase forwards and others want it to erase backwards?
Besides, we already (kind of) have a keysym that unconditionally
erases forward (meaning everyone pretty much expects it, not that it
can't be overridden).  That would be the C-d key.

I think the crux is that everyone pretty much agrees what backspace
should do (erase backwards) and C-d (erase forwards) and the real
argument stems from what the delete key should do, which in my opinion 
should be settable to either erase forwards or backwards depending on
the user preference via a one-liner in .emacs and shouldn't be a
burden on the user.  It should also break as little as possible and
play nicely with everyone else, as well as carry the setting across
all modes.

-- Gary F.


