From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Nils Berg Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.bugs Subject: bug#24379: [PATCH] lisp/bindings.el: Bind (yank-pop -1) to M-Y Date: Wed, 14 Sep 2016 11:42:57 +0200 Message-ID: References: <301ed440-5d6e-4fc9-9fb9-c1991ed9c457@default> <35566841-27d9-670e-0a77-d83563d8b35b@gmail.com> <2685aa54-ed6f-40c5-848e-de2529c41582@default> NNTP-Posting-Host: blaine.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a113a2800dfbd5b053c748dda X-Trace: blaine.gmane.org 1473846337 21532 195.159.176.226 (14 Sep 2016 09:45:37 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@blaine.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 14 Sep 2016 09:45:37 +0000 (UTC) Cc: =?UTF-8?Q?Cl=C3=A9ment?= Pit--Claudel , 24379@debbugs.gnu.org To: Drew Adams Original-X-From: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Wed Sep 14 11:45:27 2016 Return-path: Envelope-to: geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by blaine.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1bk6ks-0003yb-1u for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Wed, 14 Sep 2016 11:45:22 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:54703 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bk6kt-0001Fa-2J for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Wed, 14 Sep 2016 05:45:23 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:55979) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bk6jg-0000J3-BO for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Wed, 14 Sep 2016 05:44:09 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bk6ja-0004qc-MY for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Wed, 14 Sep 2016 05:44:07 -0400 Original-Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.43]:33190) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bk6ja-0004qY-IL for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Wed, 14 Sep 2016 05:44:02 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1bk6ja-0004ux-D1 for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Wed, 14 Sep 2016 05:44:02 -0400 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Resent-From: Nils Berg Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Wed, 14 Sep 2016 09:44:02 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 24379 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs X-GNU-PR-Keywords: patch Original-Received: via spool by 24379-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B24379.147384618518828 (code B ref 24379); Wed, 14 Sep 2016 09:44:02 +0000 Original-Received: (at 24379) by debbugs.gnu.org; 14 Sep 2016 09:43:05 +0000 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:59135 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1bk6ie-0004tc-V2 for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 14 Sep 2016 05:43:05 -0400 Original-Received: from mail-qt0-f174.google.com ([209.85.216.174]:35596) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1bk6id-0004t8-52 for 24379@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 14 Sep 2016 05:43:03 -0400 Original-Received: by mail-qt0-f174.google.com with SMTP id 93so3745051qtg.2 for <24379@debbugs.gnu.org>; Wed, 14 Sep 2016 02:43:03 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=e6cUmwb4iuUZDCFF4FpBimw1+Dzrv6WUnkJAUzqOBGE=; b=FjeY/2YwAL1ReK6/LWgby0iobexoKwTIEYbUAZIjjX7Vn8U63d8C8/M6JfZcZKZtQq ukVvgSQb502w6R8mUqof4sNCQ68yyPrZZrFXNSx9pvchJFpNrrjpkRAYB5YaSrCEApZL ld+6olvw1vrFMy0Bh7Y+7qkVf0qXTlQeLMmzncP6TsNqOjhLt+zStyu7xwTcE7ar3hWE ulJqEnNTT1l0lD6/ePW/YkasXGssPz7GTpY7FFnbURPSb+D3mnGDwiGY3iIE0vWCjVfk HNTyQFppKyORcAqh5NQ8bGcG2k3knAqpFpkKOK1eqFPAwgCago/HEmVlFV8LzgEc5xwa Ln3A== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=e6cUmwb4iuUZDCFF4FpBimw1+Dzrv6WUnkJAUzqOBGE=; b=iJKa+Pe0/1XIWxWzTWdosOksKbFbHI4pbNuS2nbeTvdUlQwo8M8OZHAEk1ZUOk7nqy wAUvIJ19U+kj2o1M+OJx5kfcW/PPF9VTb2udVbcWlVc005EakgrnH25jatJyje3hDPre e9pnZuzN5xC9viMLbUPcKcHwNGub2Lae4oaslZapUV0sFgJEv/l0aNgmZaXGySo4WQea cgLULsjj5IhoJXnGHKHwRpI4tPvuB5Miv/bTeLTAcYX5qsbLKjb1CYgvK4rsTRNz5ONt g9YoTGySv3rApgf6S91PjywDrdrvVh2Ofkat0ipCkyrTZ+GOyioKHDAvADZ3jhWg9+8h /wOA== X-Gm-Message-State: AE9vXwPcO5nEO40lnM9WDYSN57oukA+uAtqKQuVAzXF8KJMmPpDNH2CzN5+S66aB2Dn6NrjV0jiMZMVCuLvYFWeC X-Received: by 10.237.35.184 with SMTP id j53mr1805563qtc.28.1473846177655; Wed, 14 Sep 2016 02:42:57 -0700 (PDT) Original-Received: by 10.200.47.165 with HTTP; Wed, 14 Sep 2016 02:42:57 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <2685aa54-ed6f-40c5-848e-de2529c41582@default> X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] X-Received-From: 208.118.235.43 X-BeenThere: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org List-Id: "Bug reports for GNU Emacs, the Swiss army knife of text editors" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: "bug-gnu-emacs" Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.bugs:123282 Archived-At: --001a113a2800dfbd5b053c748dda Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Some healthy discussion here, so let me preface this by saying I appreciate all of you working to keep the default bindings useful and not excessive. That said, I still feel there should be a single binding for (yank-pop -1). Here's why: First, all of the other commands that traverse something (that I can think of) have an opposite bound to an equally convenient combination. C-n/C-p and C-f/C-b, C-v/M-v, C-s/C-r are some examples off the top of my head. Of course 'M-- M-y' works, but that's like saying 'M-- C-n' does the same thing as C-p. (As a side note, I'll admit I didn't actually know/remember M-- is a shorthand for 'C-u -1'. That does make the common case of overshooting the item you want by 1 a lot less painful.) Second, I fully agree with Cl=C3=A9ment that just because a command is triv= ial, it's automatically unhelpful to bind it. Again, see C-n/C-p. And lastly, if a user has a custom binding for M-Y or C-M-y (I'm not dead set on either), that will still prevail. I don't see why they'd be any more reluctant to override those than M-y, which you said lots of people do. It's pretty hard to google "M-y", much less "M-Y", without Google deciding I'm actually looking for "my", so I'm going to trust you on that. So that's my 2 Cents. If you're still unconvinced, feel free to close this :) On Tue, Sep 6, 2016 at 5:58 PM, Drew Adams wrote: > > > Users can always override any key bindings, of course. > > > But many users are hesitant to override default bindings, > > > for whatever reasons. > ... > > > Yes, and my `M-y' is only turned on in Icicle minor mode (but > > > which I am always in). You can drop that example, if you like, > > > and just google for `emacs "M-y"' if you would like to see what > > > other users do with `M-y'. > > > > I'm having trouble reconciling these two statements: on the one hand > > people don't like overriding existing bindings, but on the other hand > > many people override the existing M-y binding? > > Maybe you're having trouble because you're trying too hard to > argue. ;-) > > Many users do override default bindings. And many do not. > > In any case, the proposal was about `M-Y', which is not bound > by default. > > > > My point was the _general_ one that I stated: (1) Many users > > > have their own uses of `M-y' and `C-M-y'. And (2) adding this > > > particular binding is not helpful - it is trivial for anyone > > > to add it, if they really want it. > > > > I don't understand. All bindings are trivial to add. That doesn't make > any > > of them less helpful. > > It's a trivial command, which is not hard for a user to discover > or consider binding. And as you yourself pointed out, `M-- M-y' > does the same thing. > > You're trying too hard to pick a fight, I'm afraid. > > Do _you_ think `M-Y' should be bound by default to the suggested > command? If so, please present some supporting arguments. > --001a113a2800dfbd5b053c748dda Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Some healthy discussion here, so let me preface this = by saying I appreciate all of you working to keep the default bindings usef= ul and not excessive.

That said, I still feel ther= e should be a single binding for (yank-pop -1). Here's why:
<= br>
First, all of the other commands that traverse something (tha= t I can think of) have an opposite bound to an equally convenient combinati= on.
C-n/C-p and C-f/C-b, C-v/M-v, C-s/C-r are some examples off t= he top of my head.

Of course 'M-- M-y' wor= ks, but that's like saying 'M-- C-n' does the same thing as C-p= .=C2=A0
(As a side note, I'll admit I didn't actually kno= w/remember M-- is a shorthand for 'C-u -1'. That does make the comm= on case of overshooting the item you want by 1 a lot less painful.)

Second, I fully agree with=C2=A0Cl=C3=A9ment that jus= t because a command is trivial, it's automatically unhelpful to bind it= . Again, see C-n/C-p.

And lastly, if a user has a = custom binding for M-Y or C-M-y (I'm not dead set on either), that will= still prevail.
I don't see why they'd be any more reluct= ant to override those than M-y, which you said lots of people do.
It's pretty hard to google "M-y", much less "M-Y",= without Google deciding I'm actually looking for "my", so I&= #39;m going to trust you on that.

So that's my= 2 Cents. If you're still unconvinced, feel free to close this :)
=

On Tue, Sep= 6, 2016 at 5:58 PM, Drew Adams <drew.adams@oracle.com> = wrote:
> > Users c= an always override any key bindings, of course.
> > But many users are hesitant to override default bindings,
> > for whatever reasons.
...
> > Yes, and my `M-y' is only turned on in Icicl= e minor mode (but
> > which I am always in).=C2=A0 You can drop that example, if you li= ke,
> > and just google for `emacs "M-y"' if you would like= to see what
> > other users do with `M-y'.
>
> I'm having trouble reconciling these two statements: on the one ha= nd
> people don't like overriding existing bindings, but on the other h= and
> many people override the existing M-y binding?

Maybe you're having trouble because you're trying too hard t= o
argue. ;-)

Many users do override default bindings.=C2=A0 And many do not.

In any case, the proposal was about `M-Y', which is not bound
by default.

> > My point was the _general_ one that I stated: (1) Many users
> > have their own uses of `M-y' and `C-M-y'.=C2=A0 And (2) a= dding this
> > particular binding is not helpful - it is trivial for anyone
> > to add it, if they really want it.
>
> I don't understand. All bindings are trivial to add. That doesn= 9;t make any
> of them less helpful.

It's a trivial command, which is not hard for a user to discover=
or consider binding.=C2=A0 And as you yourself pointed out, `M-- M-y' does the same thing.

You're trying too hard to pick a fight, I'm afraid.

Do _you_ think `M-Y' should be bound by default to the suggested
command?=C2=A0 If so, please present some supporting arguments.

--001a113a2800dfbd5b053c748dda--