Daniel Brockman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Daniel Jensen) writes: > >> Daniel Brockman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> >>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Daniel Jensen) writes: >>> >>> I wonder why it's called `universal argument', though... >> >> I don't know, C-u is a universal argument but it cannot be /the/ >> universal argument. We should let M-& be one too. I agree that the >> name can be more clear on what the command actually does. > > So each command would have to implement support for `M-&'?
No, but it's used like C-u in that it modifies how a command operates. It's not an actual argument, so it might make sense to call it something else. I take back that it's not a good idea to extend it to use a prefix or the region, I didn't really think about it. If it's not in the way, then I don't mind. This means maybe that it should not do anything special when there is no prefix and no region. I don't know if it is always good to kill the marking before iterating through the lines -- can you think of examples of when it messes things up or when it helps not to mess up? _______________________________________________ bongo-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bongo-devel
