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

Previous Next

To reply to this bug, email your comments to 77857 AT debbugs.gnu.org.

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

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

From: James Thomas <jimjoe <at> gmx.net>
To: bug-gnu-emacs <at> gnu.org
Subject: [PATCH] Let eww-copy-page-url append to existing kill
Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2025 10:07:52 +0530

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

Tags: patch
Severity: wishlist

[0001-Let-eww-copy-page-url-append-to-existing-kill.patch (text/x-patch, attachment)]

[Message part 3 (text/plain, inline)]

The way I use this, it lets me add the link to a description of the page
(usually text copied from itself) which is now fit for sharing with C-y.

Thoughts?

--

Message #8 received at 77857 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Stefan Kangas <stefankangas <at> gmail.com>
To: James Thomas <jimjoe <at> gmx.net>, 77857 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#77857: [PATCH] Let eww-copy-page-url append to existing kill
Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2025 22:52:12 -0700

James Thomas via "Bug reports for GNU Emacs, the Swiss army knife of
text editors" <bug-gnu-emacs <at> gnu.org> writes:

> Tags: patch
> Severity: wishlist
>
> From c1f63607d0107c1ec39489bdcfdeb2c086112fbf Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: James Thomas <jimjoe <at> gmx.net>
> Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2025 09:56:27 +0530
> Subject: [PATCH] Let eww-copy-page-url append to existing kill
>
> * lisp/net/eww.el (eww-copy-page-url): Make the change.
> ---
>  lisp/net/eww.el | 5 ++++-
>  1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/lisp/net/eww.el b/lisp/net/eww.el
> index c3e927b74a6..df16f12875a 100644
> --- a/lisp/net/eww.el
> +++ b/lisp/net/eww.el
> @@ -2159,7 +2159,10 @@ eww-copy-page-url
>    "Copy the URL of the current page into the kill ring."
>    (interactive nil eww-mode)
>    (message "%s" (plist-get eww-data :url))
> -  (kill-new (plist-get eww-data :url)))
> +  (let ((str (plist-get eww-data :url)))
> +    (if (eq last-command 'kill-region)
> +        (kill-append str nil)
> +      (kill-new str))))
>
>  (defun eww-download ()
>    "Download a Web page to `eww-download-directory'.
> --
> 2.46.0
>
>
> The way I use this, it lets me add the link to a description of the page
> (usually text copied from itself) which is now fit for sharing with C-y.
>
> Thoughts?

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.  Perhaps a
new defcustom is in order.

This should also be in NEWS, and possibly in the EWW manual.

Message #11 received at 77857 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
To: James Thomas <jimjoe <at> gmx.net>
Cc: 77857 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#77857: [PATCH] Let eww-copy-page-url append to existing kill
Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2025 09:47:33 +0300

> Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2025 10:07:52 +0530
> From:  James Thomas via "Bug reports for GNU Emacs,
>  the Swiss army knife of text editors" <bug-gnu-emacs <at> gnu.org>
> 
> The way I use this, it lets me add the link to a description of the page
> (usually text copied from itself) which is now fit for sharing with C-y.
> 
> Thoughts?

That's an incompatible change in behavior, no?

In any case, it needs to be called out in NEWS.

Message #14 received at 77857 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: James Thomas <jimjoe <at> gmx.net>
To: Stefan Kangas <stefankangas <at> gmail.com>
Cc: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>, 77857 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: 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: 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").

--

Message #17 received at 77857 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
To: James Thomas <jimjoe <at> gmx.net>
Cc: stefankangas <at> gmail.com, 77857 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: 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: Sat, 19 Apr 2025 14:48:39 +0300

> From: James Thomas <jimjoe <at> gmx.net>
> Cc: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>,  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.

Message #20 received at 77857 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

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: Re: 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 12:29:39 +0530

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')

--

Message #23 received at 77857 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

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: Re: 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?

--

Message #26 received at 77857 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
To: James Thomas <jimjoe <at> gmx.net>
Cc: stefankangas <at> gmail.com, 77857 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: 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 12:26:33 +0300

> From: James Thomas <jimjoe <at> gmx.net>
> Cc: stefankangas <at> gmail.com,  77857 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
> Date: Sun, 20 Apr 2025 12:29:39 +0530
> 
> 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')

What I have in mind is the sequence "M-w w" or "C-w w".  AFAIU,
previously, 'w' would start a new kill-ring entry, but with your
suggestion it will append to whatever C-w/M-w killed before it.
Right?

Message #29 received at 77857 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

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: Re: bug#77857: [PATCH] Let eww-copy-page-url append to existing kill
Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2025 05:43:00 +0530

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

Eli Zaretskii writes:

>> From: James Thomas
>> Cc: stefankangas <at> gmail.com,  77857 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
>> Date: Sun, 20 Apr 2025 12:29:39 +0530
>> 
>> 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')
>
> What I have in mind is the sequence "M-w w" or "C-w w".  AFAIU,
> previously, 'w' would start a new kill-ring entry, but with your
> suggestion it will append to whatever C-w/M-w killed before it.
> Right?

The first wouldn't, because 'M-w' is not 'kill-region', and for the
second, one would have to _move out_ of the form field (where the 'C-w'
happened) before pressing 'w'.

But indeed, when I came up with this I hadn't thought of the situation
where 'w' is rebound to a key-chord, perhaps, so that it could be typed
immediately after, in the latter case above. So the question now is
whether it's even desirable in such a (IMO, rare) case. If so, here's an
updated patch with a News entry.

[0001-Let-eww-copy-page-url-append-to-existing-kill.patch (text/x-patch, attachment)]

[Message part 3 (text/plain, inline)]

--

Message #32 received at 77857 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

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: Re: bug#77857: [PATCH] Let eww-copy-page-url append to existing kill
Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2025 06:13:59 +0530

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

James Thomas writes:

> Eli Zaretskii writes:
>
>>> From: James Thomas
>>> Cc: stefankangas <at> gmail.com,  77857 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
>>> Date: Sun, 20 Apr 2025 12:29:39 +0530
>>> 
>>> 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')
>>
>> What I have in mind is the sequence "M-w w" or "C-w w".  AFAIU,
>> previously, 'w' would start a new kill-ring entry, but with your
>> suggestion it will append to whatever C-w/M-w killed before it.
>> Right?
>
> The first wouldn't, because 'M-w' is not 'kill-region', and for the
> second, one would have to _move out_ of the form field (where the 'C-w'
> happened) before pressing 'w'.
>
> But indeed, when I came up with this I hadn't thought of the situation
> where 'w' is rebound to a key-chord, perhaps, so that it could be typed
> immediately after, in the latter case above. So the question now is
> whether it's even desirable in such a (IMO, rare) case. If so, here's an
> updated patch with a News entry.

Updated with doc fixes:

[0001-Let-eww-copy-page-url-append-to-proximate-kill.patch (text/x-patch, attachment)]

[Message part 3 (text/plain, inline)]

--

Previous Next

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