* Hrvoje Niksic <hniksic(a)xemacs.org> writes:
Steve Youngs <steve(a)sxemacs.org> writes:
> > I don't see the point of this. In the rare cases where deleting
> > without touching the kill-ring is needed, one can use the
> > movement commands along with "delete-region".
> What you might consider rare, somebody else might consider common.
Sure, but what is the reason for deleting words without killing
Do the killed words corrupt the state of your kill-ring? (I'm
guessing here.) I've never encountered a problem with kill-word, so I
have to ask.
No there isn't any corruption or anything like that going on. It's
simply a way to avoid things going into the kill-ring if you don't
want them to.
But I suppose that you can cycle through elements of the kill-ring
I'm objecting because we might as well introduce functions for
deleting a line without killing it, deleting a sexp without killing
it, etc. It would be -- if you excuse the bad pun -- overkill.
Bugger. I think I'm finding myself agreeing with you.
> > Is there a usage pattern for these patterns that I'm
> I dunno, I've used it 3 or 4 times writing this email. :-)
Why not just use M-backspace and M-d instead?
Um, because they _kill_ the word thus add to the kill-ring. The
whole purpose behind `delete-word' is that the deleted word _doesn't_
end up in the kill-ring.
I'm not going to push this any further, I no longer think it is such a
crash hot idea.
|---<Steve Youngs>---------------<GnuPG KeyID: A94B3003>---|
| I am Dyslexic of Borg. |
| Fusistance is retile. Your arse will be laminated. |