From xemacs-m  Fri Jun  6 21:57:07 1997
Received: from jagor.srce.hr (hniksic@jagor.srce.hr [161.53.2.130])
	by xemacs.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id VAA21119
	for <xemacs-beta@xemacs.org>; Fri, 6 Jun 1997 21:57:05 -0500 (CDT)
Received: (from hniksic@localhost)
          by jagor.srce.hr (8.8.5/8.8.4)
	  id EAA12535; Sat, 7 Jun 1997 04:56:54 +0200 (MET DST)
To: Glynn Clements <glynn@sensei.co.uk>
Cc: XEmacs Developers <xemacs-beta@xemacs.org>
Subject: Re: XEmacs 20.3-beta4 ("Warsaw") is released
References: <m2u3jc762w.fsf@altair.xemacs.org> 	<kigd8pzgwip.fsf@jagor.srce.hr> <199706070246.DAA00568@cerise.sensei.co.uk>
X-Attribution: Hrv
X-Face: Mie8:rOV<\c/~z{s.X4A{!?vY7{drJ([U]0O=W/<W*SMo/Mv:58:*_y~ki>xDi&N7XG
        KV^$k0m3Oe/)'e%3=$PCR&3ITUXH,cK>]bci&<qQ>Ff%x_>1`T(+M2Gg/fgndU%k*ft
        [(7._6e0n-V%|%'[c|q:;}td$#INd+;?!-V=c8Pqf}3J
From: Hrvoje Niksic <hniksic@srce.hr>
Date: 07 Jun 1997 04:56:53 +0200
In-Reply-To: Glynn Clements's message of Sat, 7 Jun 1997 03:46:33 +0100
Message-ID: <kigenafruh6.fsf@jagor.srce.hr>
Lines: 49
X-Mailer: Gnus v5.4.52/XEmacs 20.3(beta4)

Glynn Clements <glynn@sensei.co.uk> writes:

> > Are you aware that this is far from working?  When I put
> > 
> > (setq delete-erases-forward t)
> > 
> > in my .emacs, the key above enter erases forward, both on TTY-s and X, 
> > which is *not* the way it should be.
> 
> In a previous post, you said:
> 
> > Pressing the key-above-enter generates a Delete X event for me.
> 
> My interpretation of delete-erases-forward is that setting it to t
> should make this key delete forward, under X at least.

Nope.

If I understood Gary D. Foster correctly (and I think I did, because
we continued our list discussion to private email), I'm supposed to
put the following in my ~/.emacs:

(setq delete-erases-forward t)

and his code will take care to see that I don't really have a
backspace keysym, etc.

In fact, the `delete-erases-forward' variable is highly misleading,
and its existence is required by two causes:

1) improper implementation; the variable provides excellent fallback
   in case the implementation is buggy or incomplete (as is the case
   with 20.3-b4);

2) users who really want both backspace and delete to erase backward,
   even when the keys are separate.
   I seem to remember Kyle Jones requesting something of the kind.

> I was under the impression that the whole reason for making Delete
> erase backwards by default was to deal with the case where the
> Backspace key (as I would call it) generates Delete.

No, I don't think that's the reason.  Gary, can you please clear it
up?

-- 
Hrvoje Niksic <hniksic@srce.hr> | Student at FER Zagreb, Croatia
--------------------------------+--------------------------------
main(){printf(&unix["\021%six\012\0"],(unix)["have"]+"fun"-0x60);}

