Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!lll-winken!lll-tis!ames!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!bloom-beacon!mozart.att.COM!bala From: bala@mozart.att.COM Newsgroups: comp.windows.x Subject: Cut-and-paste (was Re: sharedx and remote conferencing) Message-ID: <8808092002.AA05085@ATHENA.MIT.EDU> Date: 9 Aug 88 19:52:00 GMT References: <5442@eagle.ukc.ac.uk> Sender: daemon@bloom-beacon.MIT.EDU Organization: The Internet Lines: 24 rjf@bloom-beacon.mit.edu writes: > It seems to me that these operations are generally part of the >functionality, and in principle no more closely associated with the >interface than any other part of the functionality of an interactive >application. >So why does X, like other windowing systems, provide 'cut buffers' and >such stuff? apart from historical reasons it is a useful short cut (used heavily). it is a pure editing operation - not too dissimilar to yanking region between emacs windows. cut-and-paste stands on the fine line between functionality and interface. in some sense it is interface as everyone understands it without having to be taught :-) it is functionality as both applications become aware of it (though, both may not know about it right away). some operations (like c-a-p) are very natural and have thus ended up in interfaces. you will notice the trend that as operations become generic they migrate to the interface level (what happens underneath may vary with application). if you have a specification for a language that random applications can use to talk to each other in the interactive sense i would like to hear about it. cheers, bala