From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Tak Ota Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Will default key bindings spell the death of Emacs? Date: Thu, 29 May 2003 17:47:43 -0700 (PDT) Organization: Sony Electronics Inc. Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+emacs-devel=quimby.gnus.org@gnu.org Message-ID: <20030529.174743.98156433.Takaaki.Ota@am.sony.com> References: <3ED67422.7060305@math.ku.dk> <20030529214728.GA24984@gnu.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: main.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: main.gmane.org 1054255850 26333 80.91.224.249 (30 May 2003 00:50:50 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@main.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 30 May 2003 00:50:50 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+emacs-devel=quimby.gnus.org@gnu.org Fri May 30 02:50:47 2003 Return-path: Original-Received: from quimby.gnus.org ([80.91.224.244]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 19LY6Z-0006qP-00 for ; Fri, 30 May 2003 02:50:47 +0200 Original-Received: from monty-python.gnu.org ([199.232.76.173]) by quimby.gnus.org with esmtp (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian)) id 19LYLT-0004lg-00 for ; Fri, 30 May 2003 03:06:11 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19LY4X-0003lb-Pz for emacs-devel@quimby.gnus.org; Thu, 29 May 2003 20:48:41 -0400 Original-Received: from list by monty-python.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.20) id 19LY4A-0003Ec-Ih for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 29 May 2003 20:48:18 -0400 Original-Received: from mail by monty-python.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.20) id 19LY3u-0002Sz-IV for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 29 May 2003 20:48:04 -0400 Original-Received: from mail6.fw-sj.sony.com ([160.33.82.73]) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19LY3o-00024N-Qx; Thu, 29 May 2003 20:47:56 -0400 Original-Received: from mail2.sjc.in.sel.sony.com (mail2.sjc.in.sel.sony.com [43.134.1.111]) by mail6.fw-sj.sony.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id AAA23536; Fri, 30 May 2003 00:47:46 GMT Original-Received: by mail2.sjc.in.sel.sony.com id AAA10265; Fri, 30 May 2003 00:47:44 GMT Original-To: miles@gnu.org In-Reply-To: <20030529214728.GA24984@gnu.org> X-Telephone: +1-858-942-3239 X-Fax------: +1-858-942-9142 X-SnailMail: 16450 West Bernardo Drive MZ7205, San Diego, CA 92127-1804 X-Mailer: Mew-4.0.54 on Emacs-21.3.50.1 (i386-msvc-nt5.0.2195) of 2003-05-29 Original-cc: larsh@math.ku.dk X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1b5 Precedence: list List-Id: Emacs development discussions. List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+emacs-devel=quimby.gnus.org@gnu.org Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:14447 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.devel:14447 Thu, 29 May 2003 17:47:28 -0400: Miles Bader wrote: > On Thu, May 29, 2003 at 10:57:06PM +0200, Lars Hansen wrote: > > Yes, it is a large task to implement a possibility to completely change > > keymappings of Emacs, but never the less, IMHO it is the right thing to do. > > And it could be done in small steps if we lay out a strategy. > > No it's a completely silly thing to do (or even waste time arguing about). I agree with Miles. It is silly to change the standard emacs binding because for example C-n is not simply bound to next-line but it is bound to the concept or notion "next" so that some other package also binds C-n to a function that intuitively matches to the notion "next", which may not necessarily perform next-line. Sometimes ?n is also bound to "next". But at the same time I also sympathize with what Lars and others are pointing out. Is it worth considering as a long term development item to introduce a notion layer between key sequence and function? Each mode package binds a notion to a function instead of a key sequence to a function in its local map. The key sequence to notion binding is defined elsewhere. This way if a user binds some other key sequence than C-n to "next" it applies to entire emacs living environment including but not limited to next-line. This idea of notion layer is interesting and easy to say but actual implementation work is unimaginably enormous because it involves all lisp libraries. I am not so positive if it is really worth daring. -Tak