From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: PPAATT@aol.com Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: across terminals Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2002 09:51:22 EDT Sender: emacs-devel-admin@gnu.org Message-ID: <38.26f86d66.29fab55a@aol.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: localhost.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Trace: main.gmane.org 1019830222 29620 127.0.0.1 (26 Apr 2002 14:10:22 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@main.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2002 14:10:22 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org, Kai.Grossjohann@CS.Uni-Dortmund.DE, eliz@is.elta.co.il Return-path: Original-Received: from quimby.gnus.org ([80.91.224.244]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1 (Debian)) id 1716QY-0007hd-00 for ; Fri, 26 Apr 2002 16:10:22 +0200 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([199.232.76.164]) by quimby.gnus.org with esmtp (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian)) id 1716TD-0001pY-00 for ; Fri, 26 Apr 2002 16:13:08 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=fencepost.gnu.org) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 3.34 #1 (Debian)) id 1716QJ-0006uF-00; Fri, 26 Apr 2002 10:10:07 -0400 Original-Received: from imo-r04.mx.aol.com ([152.163.225.100]) by fencepost.gnu.org with smtp (Exim 3.34 #1 (Debian)) id 17168G-0005l1-00; Fri, 26 Apr 2002 09:51:28 -0400 Original-Received: from PPAATT@aol.com by imo-r04.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v32.5.) id 7.38.26f86d66 (4563); Fri, 26 Apr 2002 09:51:22 -0400 (EDT) Original-To: rms@gnu.org X-Mailer: AOL 5.0 for Windows sub 138 Errors-To: emacs-devel-admin@gnu.org X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.9 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: Emacs development discussions. List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:3298 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.devel:3298 > From: rms@gnu.org (Richard Stallman) > Let's consider this issue closed > and NOT SPEND MORE TIME on it, OK? This we could do by fiat, sure boss. > I stand by what I said. I'm new here I know, but certainly I am as yet failing to make sense of what you said. Do you mean to withdraw or otherwise modify what you did not repeat? That is ... > Date: 4/20/02 11:28:15 AM MDT > From: rms@gnu.org (Richard Stallman) ... > Since such characters are not available on all terminals, ... > People won't want to use these keys in major modes > or minor modes meant for general use. Looks to me like Emacs folk actually do commonly bind rare keys for general use? Agreed? No? Yes? Not exactly? Are we just now telling me now this was inadvertent? When we say "available on all terminals" we mean the only terminals that count are those designed for the people of Massachusetts? > # $ @ [ \ ] ^ _ ` { | } ~ ... > I thought the issue was > whether the terminal has these characters. ... > Whether they use AltGr ... not ... relevant ... This English I still think I don't understand, sorry. The non-US keyboards I see don't have these labels on keys. Saying that these terminals have these chars is as silly as saying a US IBM PC keyboard has all of the chars coded 0 to 255 because "everyone knows" you can hold down the Alt key and type out the code in decimal on the numeric keypad. By that theory, the US IBM PC keyboard has the letter =F1 on it, perhaps at Alt 1 6 4, so C-c =F1 should count among the C-c letter keys. But this you began by explicitly denying. > > The non-US keyboards I see > > don't have these labels on keys. Is my (sharply limited) sample not representative? > Since such characters are not available on all terminals, ... > People won't want to use these keys in major modes > or minor modes meant for general use. What can this mean ... presuming you maintain it is true? (((This would matter less, except that RMS said it, so maybe here lies a key to understanding why Emacs can say things like "overwrite-mode is on insert" and "C-c C-h is undefined" while meaning something rather different than the newbie might think.))) Pat LaVarre Subj: Re: across terminals Date: 4/25/02 9:18:55 PM Mountain Daylight Time From: rms@gnu.org (Richard Stallman) Reply-to: rms@gnu.org To: eliz@is.elta.co.il CC: PPAATT@aol.com, emacs-devel@gnu.org, Kai.Grossjohann@CS.Uni-Dortmund.DE > > I have never seen a terminal that did not have > > these characters: > > # $ @ [ \ ] ^ _ ` { | } ~ > Unfortunately, this isn't true: many national > keyboards in Europe don't have keys for some > of those ( {, |, and } seem to be most prone > to this). You need to press some AltGr-key > combination to get them. I thought the issue was whether the terminal has these characters. Whether they use AltGr is another question (not particularly relevant here, I think). I stand by what I said. Let's consider this issue closed and NOT SPEND MORE TIME on it, OK?