From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Miles Bader Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: [CVS] f7, f8 bound.. Date: Sun, 1 Sep 2002 06:45:17 -0400 Sender: emacs-devel-admin@gnu.org Message-ID: <20020901104517.GB9909@gnu.org> References: <5xu1liwmu6.fsf@kfs2.cua.dk> <200208261526.g7QFQX624783@rum.cs.yale.edu> <5xu1lgu1e4.fsf@kfs2.cua.dk> <200208271621.g7RGLNm30516@rum.cs.yale.edu> <5xhehfe3aj.fsf@kfs2.cua.dk> <874rdfaytt.fsf@pot.cnuce.cnr.it> NNTP-Posting-Host: localhost.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: main.gmane.org 1030877134 22953 127.0.0.1 (1 Sep 2002 10:45:34 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@main.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 1 Sep 2002 10:45:34 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org Return-path: Original-Received: from quimby.gnus.org ([80.91.224.244]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 17lSEX-0005y6-00 for ; Sun, 01 Sep 2002 12:45:33 +0200 Original-Received: from monty-python.gnu.org ([199.232.76.173]) by quimby.gnus.org with esmtp (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian)) id 17lSmE-0003Bk-00 for ; Sun, 01 Sep 2002 13:20:22 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.10) id 17lSFy-0008Jv-00; Sun, 01 Sep 2002 06:47:02 -0400 Original-Received: from list by monty-python.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.10) id 17lSEK-0008BK-00 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 01 Sep 2002 06:45:20 -0400 Original-Received: from mail by monty-python.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.10) id 17lSEH-0008B8-00 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 01 Sep 2002 06:45:19 -0400 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([199.232.76.164]) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.10) id 17lSEH-0008B2-00 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 01 Sep 2002 06:45:17 -0400 Original-Received: from miles by fencepost.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.10) id 17lSEH-0002yd-00; Sun, 01 Sep 2002 06:45:17 -0400 Original-To: huug Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.28i Blat: Foop Errors-To: emacs-devel-admin@gnu.org X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.11 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: Emacs development discussions. List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:7245 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.devel:7245 On Sun, Sep 01, 2002 at 06:58:29AM +0200, huug wrote: > Hmm.. Maybe someone could explain why start-macro ought to have a > different binding then end-macro? As far as I can recall, you can't > start a macro definition when you are recording a macro, so.. If the macro start/end-definition keys are separate from execute-macro, as with the standard emacs bindings, then you could combine them for the reason you say. However, Kim's scheme puts end-definition and execute-macro on the same key, so you can't combine that with start-definition (because then it wouldn't know if you want to execute the macro again, or define a new macro). In other words, you need at least two keys for macros. > Having learnt Emacs under OS/2, means (call-last-kbd-macro) to > me (not to mention is (switch-to-other-buffer), > (emx-search-forward) and (emx-search-backward) ;) , so something > like [C-f11] (start-or-end-kbd-macro), [C-u C-f11] > (extend-last-kbd-macro) and [M-f11] (name-last-kbd-macro) would be > more logical to me. Those bindings are completely meaningless for the great majority of users (just like Kim's). This is exactly the reason why we should just avoid making standard bindings for function keys altogether -- they're not mnemonic at all. -Miles -- P.S. All information contained in the above letter is false, for reasons of military security.