Re: [Doc-bug] zap-to-char - including or up-to? - XEmacs-Beta - XEmacs Mailing List Archives

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

2003

2002

2001

2000

1999

1998

Re: [Doc-bug] zap-to-char - including or up-to?

Re: NEWS update

Re: enable-clash-detection

David C Worenklein

Friday, 15 May 1998 Fri, 15 May '98

1:54 p.m.

(permalink)

The binding doesn't bother me. "M-z del" isn't much harder than "M-z", and I can always rebind it. Just leave zap-to-char the way it is, and bind M-z to zap-up-to-char. (Actually, changing it makes a lot of sense, since "M-z del" is doable, but there is no "M-z undel".)

Reply

Show replies by date

acs＠acm.org

Friday, 15 May Fri, 15 May

4:22 p.m.

(permalink)

New subject: [Doc-bug] zap-to-char - including or up-to?

dcw(a)gcm.com said:

The binding doesn't bother me. "M-z del" isn't much harder than "M-z", and I can always rebind it.

Just leave zap-to-char the way it is, and bind M-z to zap-up-to-char.

(Actually, changing it makes a lot of sense, since "M-z del" is doable, but there is no "M-z undel".)

Personally, I think the documentation for zap-to-char should be changed, and the definition and binding of zap-to-char be left alone. How hard is it to type: 'M-z x' followed immediately by another 'x' if you want to restore the final, deleted character. I've learned to live with this, as have nearly all the other lusers of {FSF,X}Emacs 19. This strikes me as the kind of arbitrary change which always draws howls of protest. My $.02. vin

Reply

9837

days inactive

9837

days old

xemacs-beta@xemacs.org

Manage subscription

1 comments

2 participants

tags (0)

participants (2)

acs＠acm.org
David C Worenklein