From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: "Drew Adams" Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: RE: Unuseful keybindings Date: Sun, 23 Dec 2012 09:03:03 -0800 Message-ID: <1C9978ED468E4CC8948C1B93D6806A18@us.oracle.com> References: <87sj73qzvl.fsf@gmail.com> <87623zquvw.fsf@gmail.com><87ip7zdud3.fsf@gmail.com> <87ehiiu5x7.fsf@gnu.org><876A7D1112084247AE53F7EE42B4587C@us.oracle.com><80ehih3hlj.fsf@somewhere.org> <87pq21iwrw.fsf@yandex.ru> <87AE81CEB91846DB94BC5F3B40C788DE@us.oracle.com> <50D64318.5030501@yandex.ru> <0FBA2D9ECA214D82B5C65E5A09E7EE19@us.oracle.com> <50D71824.90601@yandex.ru> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1356282216 22941 80.91.229.3 (23 Dec 2012 17:03:36 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 23 Dec 2012 17:03:36 +0000 (UTC) Cc: public-emacs-devel-mXXj517/zsQ@plane.gmane.org, 'Sebastien Vauban' , emacs-devel@gnu.org To: "'Dmitry Gutov'" Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sun Dec 23 18:03:50 2012 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Tmoxp-00026u-IU for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sun, 23 Dec 2012 18:03:49 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:44177 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Tmoxb-0000CK-Hu for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sun, 23 Dec 2012 12:03:35 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:44243) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1TmoxT-0000Bs-7B for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 23 Dec 2012 12:03:33 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1TmoxL-0002iz-Sv for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 23 Dec 2012 12:03:27 -0500 Original-Received: from aserp1040.oracle.com ([141.146.126.69]:32267) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1TmoxL-0002iu-MG for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 23 Dec 2012 12:03:19 -0500 Original-Received: from ucsinet22.oracle.com (ucsinet22.oracle.com [156.151.31.94]) by aserp1040.oracle.com (Sentrion-MTA-4.2.2/Sentrion-MTA-4.2.2) with ESMTP id qBNH3GFb004443 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Sun, 23 Dec 2012 17:03:17 GMT Original-Received: from acsmt358.oracle.com (acsmt358.oracle.com [141.146.40.158]) by ucsinet22.oracle.com (8.14.4+Sun/8.14.4) with ESMTP id qBNH3ELp019437 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Sun, 23 Dec 2012 17:03:15 GMT Original-Received: from abhmt106.oracle.com (abhmt106.oracle.com [141.146.116.58]) by acsmt358.oracle.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id qBNH3EEQ010165; Sun, 23 Dec 2012 11:03:14 -0600 Original-Received: from dradamslap1 (/71.202.147.44) by default (Oracle Beehive Gateway v4.0) with ESMTP ; Sun, 23 Dec 2012 09:03:13 -0800 X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11 In-Reply-To: <50D71824.90601@yandex.ru> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.6157 Thread-Index: Ac3hG6HjUnTiyBq+RU+AV+h+Q4q0YgAD8MbA X-Source-IP: ucsinet22.oracle.com [156.151.31.94] X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.4.x-2.6.x [generic] X-Received-From: 141.146.126.69 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:155817 Archived-At: > > We never should have bound those function keys, IMHO, with > > (probably) the exception of `f1', which has more in the way > > of supporting argument. > > Well, that's my point. None of the current f-key bindings take into > account repeatability, so you asking not to bind f11 for that reason > doesn't sound very convincing, and goes against consistency. > I'd certainly prefer if different f-keys were bound or not > bound on the same principle. Two wrongs do not make a right. We-should-add-wrongs-in-the-name-of-consistency is misguided, and represents a complete misunderstanding of the value of consistency. Among other things, consistency, like so many other things that can be helpful, is not something to be absolute about. Consistency for a purpose, and subject to other considerations, not just consistency for consistency's sake. And your consistency argument works both ways: Why not consistently remove all function-key default bindings? > The possible reason why those keys are so nice and still > mostly have no bindings is they are far from the home row, I believe that Emacs Dev intentionally avoided binding them by default. They were left for users and applications. `home' (Home) and the arrow keys are far from the home row also. They have been bound since they existed, AFAIK. > so the expectation is they can only be used for one-off commands, Who's expectation? What makes you think that? Wanna guess how many users use the arrow keys and how often? Not very one-off, is my guess. > not in a sequence in the middle of other commands during an editing session. Why? Wanna guess how many users hold down an arrow key to repeat its command? Imagine if Emacs Dev had misguidedly bound `down' (the down arrow) by default to a non-repeatable command such as `fullscreen'. Not as useful as the key could be. > > There is absolutely no reason for Emacs to bind `f3' and > > `f4' by default. Emacs has had keyboard macros practically > > from Day One. Zillions of Emacs users created zillions of > > keyboard macros, without Emacs Dev ever feeling that we > > should waste binding simple, repeatable keys to their > > creation and execution. > > These keys are featured on the Emacs tour page, so there's no getting > rid of them now, I suppose. That's silly. Just update the tour to use `C-x e e e e ...' or whatever. > > Or consider `f5', which often refreshes/revert the current > > context, outside Emacs. I myself bind `f5' to a command that does > > (revert-buffer t t). And I've suggested to others that they might > > want to do the same. But I don't propose that Emacs adopt that > > convention by default, even though I use it all the time. > > I don't think this command is generally useful enough. Again, I do _not_ propose that Emacs bind `f5' by default. As for its general usefulness: users and their uses differ. > The only kind of file that might need frequent refreshing I > can imagine is a log file, and if you're viewing one of those > in Emacs, you'd also have to scroll to the bottom each time. But are you aware that `revert-buffer' is not only about reverting files from disk? It reverts/refreshes all kinds of buffers, from bookmark lists to Dired (and to a web page, I assume, if you use an Emacs browser). From the doc string: ,---- | This command also implements an interface for special buffers | that contain text which doesn't come from a file, but reflects | some other data instead (e.g. Dired buffers, `buffer-list' | buffers). This is done via the variable `revert-buffer-function'. | In these cases, it should reconstruct the buffer contents from the | appropriate data. `----