What you are seeing might be the interaction between grouped and linked dynamics, and some deliberate behaviour that might not appear consistent. Examples:
- create two linked ‘p’ markings, select one, delete. This will delete just one ‘p’.
- create a group ‘p<f’, then Alt-copy below for a linked copy. Select one entire group of ‘p<f’, delete. This will delete this one selected group of ‘p<f’, but the other one should remain.
- now undo the ‘p<f’ delete, then select just one ‘f’ in one of the groups, delete. The ‘f’ will disappear from both linked groups.
Example 3 appears to contradict the previous two.
The reason for the behaviour in example 3 is, that replacing that ‘f’ with an ‘fff’ for example, would replace it in both groups (because they are linked), so we want equivalent behaviour for delete here. The alternative would be to unlink the two groups automatically as part of that operation, which would then only delete a single ‘f’. This loses the advantage of the linking mechanism.
Arguably, we could change example 1 to delete all linked instances of the single ‘p’, but that might be more disruptive that users would expect. It would also mean that example 2 would delete all linked groups, not just the one.
If this doesn’t actually describe what you are seeing, please provide a small project with an example.