At 09:04 AM 1/30/00 -0600, Robert Sievers wrote:
>At 11:43 PM 1/29/00 -0600, sam th wrote:
>>This VERY trivial change fixes bug 10. I am not entirely sure why someone
>>would have written the code the way it was, so I may have changed
>>something important.
I originally wrote the code to do all the keyboard-driven navigation, in
particular getDocPosFromPoint(). Bob and I never agreed on a spec for the
behavior he wanted, so I didn't implement anything.
I too haven't looked at Sam's patch, but I suspect it will break more than
it fixes. Here's why.
The existing EOW logic is used for *at least* two different purposes. One
is to extend selections forward or backword one word (via Ctrl-right-arrow
and Ctrl-left-arrow). The other is double clicks.
>The bottom line is that bug #10 treads on some thin ice; trying to
>anticipate what people want. If I double click then erase, I want to
>delete the space, and if I double click then underline, I don't. It's a
>dangerous road to walk down, because doing so results in software that
>tries to read your mind. Looking back on it, I almost wish I wouldn't have
>reported the problem in the first place.
IIRC, Bob's bug report was that in some cases he wanted the trailing space
at the end of a bunch of words to look like it was selected, but to not be
affected by some editing operations. To my knowledge, nobody has done
enough reverse-engineering to fully specify the desired behavior in ways
which minimize other side effects.
>Having said all that, I am anxious to check out the patch after shaw has a
>chance to look at it and check it in.
Actually, I'd prefer that we *not* include any "mind-reading" patches in
this area for 0.7.8. OK?
Paul
