GNU bug report logs - #17555
24.4.50; 'mark-paragraph' does not allow extending the region backwards

Previous Next

To add a comment to this bug, you must first unarchive it, by sending
a message to control AT debbugs.gnu.org, with unarchive 17555 in the body.
You can then email your comments to 17555 AT debbugs.gnu.org in the normal way.

Toggle the display of automated, internal messages from the tracker.

Message #5 received at submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Dani Moncayo <dmoncayo <at> gmail.com>
To: bug-gnu-emacs <bug-gnu-emacs <at> gnu.org>
Subject: 24.4.50;
 'mark-paragraph' does not allow extending the region backwards
Date: Thu, 22 May 2014 22:23:12 +0200

After reading (info "(emacs) Marking Objects") and doing some tests, I
wonder why 'mark-paragraph' does not behave like 'mark-word' and
'mark-sexp' when the mark is located before point.  In that situation
'mark-word' and 'mark-sexp' move the mark backwards to select an
earlier element (which I think is TRT), but 'mark-paragraph' moves the
mark forward instead (like when the mark is after point).

Could this inconsistency be fixed?

TIA

In GNU Emacs 24.4.50.1 (x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu, GTK+ Version 3.10.8)
 of 2014-05-05 on LEG570
Windowing system distributor `The X.Org Foundation', version 11.0.11501000
System Description: Ubuntu 14.04 LTS


-- 
Dani Moncayo

Message #8 received at 17555 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Lars Ingebrigtsen <larsi <at> gnus.org>
To: Dani Moncayo <dmoncayo <at> gmail.com>
Cc: 17555 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#17555: 24.4.50; 'mark-paragraph' does not allow extending
 the region backwards
Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2019 16:51:37 -0700

Dani Moncayo <dmoncayo <at> gmail.com> writes:

> After reading (info "(emacs) Marking Objects") and doing some tests, I
> wonder why 'mark-paragraph' does not behave like 'mark-word' and
> 'mark-sexp' when the mark is located before point.  In that situation
> 'mark-word' and 'mark-sexp' move the mark backwards to select an
> earlier element (which I think is TRT), but 'mark-paragraph' moves the
> mark forward instead (like when the mark is after point).
>
> Could this inconsistency be fixed?

It is somewhat inconsistent, but it's been documented to be this way
since at least 2001:

--
Put point at beginning of this paragraph, mark at end.
The paragraph marked is the one that contains point or follows point.
--

So I don't think this is something than can be changed at this point,
and I'm closing this bug report.

-- 
(domestic pets only, the antidote for overdose, milk.)
   bloggy blog: http://lars.ingebrigtsen.no

Message #15 received at 17555 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Juri Linkov <juri <at> linkov.net>
To: Lars Ingebrigtsen <larsi <at> gnus.org>
Cc: 17555 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, Dani Moncayo <dmoncayo <at> gmail.com>
Subject: Re: bug#17555: 24.4.50; 'mark-paragraph' does not allow extending
 the region backwards
Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2019 21:41:10 +0300

>> After reading (info "(emacs) Marking Objects") and doing some tests, I
>> wonder why 'mark-paragraph' does not behave like 'mark-word' and
>> 'mark-sexp' when the mark is located before point.  In that situation
>> 'mark-word' and 'mark-sexp' move the mark backwards to select an
>> earlier element (which I think is TRT), but 'mark-paragraph' moves the
>> mark forward instead (like when the mark is after point).
>>
>> Could this inconsistency be fixed?
>
> It is somewhat inconsistent, but it's been documented to be this way
> since at least 2001:
>
> --
> Put point at beginning of this paragraph, mark at end.
> The paragraph marked is the one that contains point or follows point.
> --

mark-paragraph could be fixed for consistency, but the problem is that
there are more commands that should be fixed then as well, e.g. mark-defun,
mark-page...

Message #18 received at 17555 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Dani Moncayo <dmoncayo <at> gmail.com>
To: Juri Linkov <juri <at> linkov.net>
Cc: 17555 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, Lars Ingebrigtsen <larsi <at> gnus.org>
Subject: Re: bug#17555: 24.4.50; 'mark-paragraph' does not allow extending the
 region backwards
Date: Tue, 20 Aug 2019 08:50:07 +0200

> mark-paragraph could be fixed for consistency, but the problem is that
> there are more commands that should be fixed then as well, e.g. mark-defun,
> mark-page...

I may be missing something, but I don't see the downside of making
them all consistent.  I.e., I don't think such a change would break
anyone's workflow.

-- 
Dani Moncayo

Message #21 received at 17555 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Juri Linkov <juri <at> linkov.net>
To: Dani Moncayo <dmoncayo <at> gmail.com>
Cc: 17555 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, Lars Ingebrigtsen <larsi <at> gnus.org>
Subject: Re: bug#17555: 24.4.50; 'mark-paragraph' does not allow extending
 the region backwards
Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2019 01:05:01 +0300

>> mark-paragraph could be fixed for consistency, but the problem is that
>> there are more commands that should be fixed then as well, e.g. mark-defun,
>> mark-page...
>
> I may be missing something, but I don't see the downside of making
> them all consistent.  I.e., I don't think such a change would break
> anyone's workflow.

I agree all they could be consistent.  But what if some users prefer
the old way?  Maybe add a new customizable option that would affect
the behavior of all these commands (extend/don't extend the region backwards)?

Message #24 received at 17555 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Dani Moncayo <dmoncayo <at> gmail.com>
To: Juri Linkov <juri <at> linkov.net>
Cc: 17555 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, Lars Ingebrigtsen <larsi <at> gnus.org>
Subject: Re: bug#17555: 24.4.50; 'mark-paragraph' does not allow extending the
 region backwards
Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2019 09:19:44 +0200

On Wed, Aug 21, 2019 at 12:07 AM Juri Linkov <juri <at> linkov.net> wrote:
>
> >> mark-paragraph could be fixed for consistency, but the problem is that
> >> there are more commands that should be fixed then as well, e.g. mark-defun,
> >> mark-page...
> >
> > I may be missing something, but I don't see the downside of making
> > them all consistent.  I.e., I don't think such a change would break
> > anyone's workflow.
>
> I agree all they could be consistent.  But what if some users prefer
> the old way?

I'd be surprised to see such users.  But OK.

> Maybe add a new customizable option that would affect
> the behavior of all these commands (extend/don't extend the region backwards)?

I'd be fine with that (though it would increase the complexity of the
code to cater to some use-case that perhaps no one would care about).

-- 
Dani Moncayo

Previous Next

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