Re: [PATCH] fix delete-property handling

[Artem Yurchenko]

-- Resending the email as I didn't include the mailing list at first. Apologies.

Hi, Ikumi,

Thank you for the review!

> Thanks for your proposals. I'm now reading through the proposed codes.

> They basically look good to me. I think that AUCTeX can accept them and

> it requires copyright assignment. I assume that you haven't signed FSF

> copyright assignment form before, so please follow this instruction if

> you want to have your proposal incorporated into AUCTeX:

> https://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/gnulib.git/tree/doc/Copyright/request-assign.future

I have signed my copyright assignment (for GNU Emacs and AUCTeX) and

emailed to assign@gnu.org. They haven't responded yet though.

>(This isn't a suggestion, just an impression.)

>> + (put symbol 'delete-selection

>> + (lambda ()

>> + (unless (funcall electricp)

>> + (get #'self-insert-command 'delete-selection)))))

>

>Good simple solution. I wasn't aware that `delete-selection' property

>can return a function because of the commentary of delsel.el:

>;; FUNCTION

>;; For commands which need to dynamically determine this behavior.

>;; FUNCTION should take no argument and return one of the above

>;; values, or nil. In the latter case, FUNCTION should itself

>;; do with the active region whatever is appropriate."

>I took that "one of the above values" doesn't include FUCTTION itself.

>However, `delete-selection-helper' is actually written to operate

>recursively, which I didn't realize.

>(That was the reason I wrote the current `delete-selection' property of

>`LaTeX-insert-left-brace' to discriminate the cases between '(yank

>supersede kill t nil) and a function.)

Yes, I think the commentary at the top of delsel.el failed to express

the intention. The docstring for delete-selection-helper says

«FUNCTION should take no argument and return a value acceptable as

TYPE, or nil.», which clarifies that recursive operation is allowed.

I've implemented the rest of the corrections/suggestions and am

attaching that as a new patch for patch-0001.

I will need to rebase my patch-0002 on top, which I'll do after the

review of that one.

Best,

Artem