1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
|
From exmh-users-admin@redhat.com Mon Sep 23 12:06:34 2002
Return-Path: <exmh-users-admin@example.com>
Delivered-To: yyyy@localhost.example.com
Received: from localhost (jalapeno [127.0.0.1])
by jmason.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E84C116F03
for <jm@localhost>; Mon, 23 Sep 2002 12:06:33 +0100 (IST)
Received: from jalapeno [127.0.0.1]
by localhost with IMAP (fetchmail-5.9.0)
for jm@localhost (single-drop); Mon, 23 Sep 2002 12:06:34 +0100 (IST)
Received: from listman.example.com (listman.example.com [66.187.233.211]) by
dogma.slashnull.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g8N5PbC02476 for
<jm-exmh@jmason.org>; Mon, 23 Sep 2002 06:25:37 +0100
Received: from listman.example.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by
listman.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7D9DE3EA67; Mon, 23 Sep 2002
01:26:04 -0400 (EDT)
Delivered-To: exmh-users@listman.example.com
Received: from int-mx1.corp.example.com (int-mx1.corp.example.com
[172.16.52.254]) by listman.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A2EAC3EDF3
for <exmh-users@listman.redhat.com>; Mon, 23 Sep 2002 01:21:56 -0400 (EDT)
Received: (from mail@localhost) by int-mx1.corp.example.com (8.11.6/8.11.6)
id g8N5Luc21797 for exmh-users@listman.redhat.com; Mon, 23 Sep 2002
01:21:56 -0400
Received: from mx1.example.com (mx1.example.com [172.16.48.31]) by
int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with SMTP id g8N5Luh21793 for
<exmh-users@redhat.com>; Mon, 23 Sep 2002 01:21:56 -0400
Received: from blackcomb.panasas.com (gw2.panasas.com [65.194.124.178]) by
mx1.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with SMTP id g8N54Hi24435 for
<exmh-users@redhat.com>; Mon, 23 Sep 2002 01:04:17 -0400
Received: from medlicott.panasas.com (IDENT:welch@medlicott.panasas.com
[172.17.132.188]) by blackcomb.panasas.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id
BAA11218 for <exmh-users@redhat.com>; Mon, 23 Sep 2002 01:21:50 -0400
Message-Id: <200209230521.BAA11218@blackcomb.panasas.com>
To: exmh-users@example.com
Subject: Re: bad focus/click behaviours
In-Reply-To: <20020915202900.F294C5D04@ptavv.es.net>
References: <20020915202900.F294C5D04@ptavv.es.net>
Comments: In-reply-to "Kevin Oberman" <oberman@es.net> message dated "Sun,
15 Sep 2002 13:28:59 -0700."
From: Brent Welch <welch@panasas.com>
X-Url: http://www.panasas.com/
X-Face: "HxE|?EnC9fVMV8f70H83&{fgLE.|FZ^$>@Q(yb#N,Eh~N]e&]=>r5~UnRml1:4EglY{9B+
:'wJq$@c_C!l8@<$t,{YUr4K,QJGHSvS~U]H`<+L*x?eGzSk>XH\W:AK\j?@?c1o<k;j'Ei/UL)!*0
ILwSR)J\bc)gjz!rrGQ2#i*f:M:ydhK}jp4dWQW?;0{,#iWrCV$4~%e/3)$1/D
X-Loop: exmh-users@example.com
Sender: exmh-users-admin@example.com
Errors-To: exmh-users-admin@example.com
X-Beenthere: exmh-users@example.com
X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.1
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: exmh-users@example.com
List-Help: <mailto:exmh-users-request@example.com?subject=help>
List-Post: <mailto:exmh-users@example.com>
List-Subscribe: <https://listman.example.com/mailman/listinfo/exmh-users>,
<mailto:exmh-users-request@redhat.com?subject=subscribe>
List-Id: Discussion list for EXMH users <exmh-users.example.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://listman.example.com/mailman/listinfo/exmh-users>,
<mailto:exmh-users-request@redhat.com?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://listman.example.com/mailman/private/exmh-users/>
Date: Sun, 22 Sep 2002 22:21:49 -0700
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-3.7 required=5.0
tests=AWL,IN_REP_TO,KNOWN_MAILING_LIST,REFERENCES,X_LOOP
version=2.50-cvs
X-Spam-Level:
>>>"Kevin Oberman" said:
> It did for me, but I am not willing to say it is not a tcl/tk issue as
> other apps seemed to work OK for cut and paste and Tk does its
> clipboard stuff a bit differently than most toolkits. So I'm not
> about to place blame. Just reporting my experience.
One more salvo on X and cut/paste. X specifies at least two *mechanisms*
for cut/paste, but as usual mandates no *policy*. Windows and Macintosh
have a slightly different mechanism and one uniform policy. I'm quite
sure that Tk implements all PRIMARY and CLIPBOARD selections accurately.
The PRIMARY selection is the one that is tied to the visible selection
on your X display. The CLIPBOARD selection is the one with the explicit
Copy step, and is the same as what you have on Windows and Macintosh.
However, exmh throws in support for the cutbuffer mechanism, which is
another archaic mechanism supported at one point (perhaps still today)
by versions of emacs. Exmh has a policy that tries to unify all these
mechanisms under one umbrella, and by all reports it is not that great.
I would encourage folks to play with those 10 lines of code in
Text_Selection and report what works well for them. We may come up
with 8 lines that work for everyone, or perhaps introduce yet another
setting that lets folks choose between a few useful models. Of course,
that's an admission of policy failure, but I'm willing to do that.
--
Brent Welch
Software Architect, Panasas Inc
Pioneering the World's Most Scalable and Agile Storage Network
www.panasas.com
welch@panasas.com
_______________________________________________
Exmh-users mailing list
Exmh-users@redhat.com
https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/exmh-users
|
