Re: Default Emacs keybindings (was: Re: Menu suggestion)

Re: Default Emacs keybindings (was: Re: Menu suggestion)

[Lars Hansen]

Maybe one have to make a choice:

1. Emacs should be for "superusers" only.
2. Emacs should be for "ordinary users" *and* "superusers".

If the first choice is made, Emacs code and manuals can continue to 
assume standard Emacs key bindings. This choice is the easy one.

If the second choice is made, Emacs code and manuals probably have to 
support different key binding sets, since the "Emacs standard" and 
"MacOS/MS Windows/Gnome/KDE consensus" are so far apart and conflicting. 
I know it is an enormous task to implement this fully, but I see no real 
choice (apart from 1).

I my dreams Emacs has these menu entries:

   Options->Key bindings->Emacs Classic
                        ->MS Windows
                        ->Modify current bindings

Choosing "Modify current bindings" one is able to move entire trees, 
such as everything prefixed by C-x, to another prefix. Furthermore, one 
can choose to save the current keybindings under a different name.

Although this is hard to implement, it is not impossible. And it must be 
possible to do it in small steps.

Re: Default Emacs keybindings (was: Re: Menu suggestion)

[Jan D.]

> If the second choice is made, Emacs code and manuals probably have to 
> support different key binding sets, since the "Emacs standard" and 
> "MacOS/MS Windows/Gnome/KDE consensus" are so far apart and 
> conflicting. I know it is an enormous task to implement this fully, 
> but I see no real choice (apart from 1).
>
> I my dreams Emacs has these menu entries:
>
>   Options->Key bindings->Emacs Classic
>                        ->MS Windows
>                        ->Modify current bindings

I would like to add to this menu, "Mac bindings", since 
undo/cut/copy/paste
is not done with C-z/C-x/C-c/C-v, on Max OS X.
The Apple key is used instead of the control key.  The Apple key is now
mapped to Meta in Emacs on Mac OS X, so it is a bit different change 
from
Unix or MS Windows.

Also, many applications on Mac OS X does handle C-a, C-e, C-f, C-p and
so on the way Emacs does.  For example, the mail application on Mac OSX,
where I write this, does scroll forward on C-v and handles movement
the Emacs way (at least C-f, C-b, C-e, C-a, C-p and C-n).  So does the
default text editor.

	Jan D.

Re: Default Emacs keybindings (was: Re: Menu suggestion)

[Eli Zaretskii]

> From: "Jan D." <jan.h.d@swipnet.se>
> Date: Mon, 26 Apr 2004 15:26:44 +0200
> 
> Also, many applications on Mac OS X does handle C-a, C-e, C-f, C-p and
> so on the way Emacs does.

That's because AFAIK Mac OSX is a descendant of the BSD Unix family.
Quite a few Unix programs support Emacs-style key bindings.

Re: Default Emacs keybindings (was: Re: Menu suggestion)

[Jan D.]

>> From: "Jan D." <jan.h.d@swipnet.se>
>> Date: Mon, 26 Apr 2004 15:26:44 +0200
>>
>> Also, many applications on Mac OS X does handle C-a, C-e, C-f, C-p and
>> so on the way Emacs does.
>
> That's because AFAIK Mac OSX is a descendant of the BSD Unix family.
> Quite a few Unix programs support Emacs-style key bindings.

That is probably one reason.  But the Mail.app and TextEdit.app on Mac 
OSX
are not descendant from any BSD programs, so Apple is extending these
bindings to new programs as well.

My point being, making CUA default on Mac is not going to give
Mac users what they expect.  Mac should not be said to use the same
"agreed" key bindings as Gnome/KDE/MS Windows in this regard.  Now if
CUA mode could use M-x/M-x/M-v on Mac, then we could discuss about
making it the default on Macs also.

	Jan D.

Re: Default Emacs keybindings (was: Re: Menu suggestion)

[Steven Tamm]

> My point being, making CUA default on Mac is not going to give
> Mac users what they expect.

I'm with you 100%.  The only sensible CUA-mode on the Mac wouldn't 
work; mostly because the default action-modifier is Command and not 
control.   So emacs -nw would never DTRT.   Making CUA the default 
would be counter-productive to me unless it was mapped to 
Command-Z,X,C, and V (in a sense, regardless of the modifier to which 
Command is mapped).    Since Command can be mapped to Control, Meta, or 
Alt; the "Mac bindings" should be able to map to either M- or to A-.

When I started working with Mac OS X, my initial goal was to make GNU 
Emacs basically operate in the same way that it did on UNIX and NT; not 
to quasi-macify parts of it.  So I set about fiddling with key mappings 
so that what my brain thought was C-a was the same on all platforms.   
Consistency of a standard application across platforms is more valuable 
to me than consistency of *all* applications within a platform; but I 
don't think everyone would agree.  Hence, all the Mac modifier options.

-Steven

On Apr 27, 2004, at 12:23 AM, Jan D. wrote:

>>> From: "Jan D." <jan.h.d@swipnet.se>
>>> Date: Mon, 26 Apr 2004 15:26:44 +0200
>>>
>>> Also, many applications on Mac OS X does handle C-a, C-e, C-f, C-p 
>>> and
>>> so on the way Emacs does.
>>
>> That's because AFAIK Mac OSX is a descendant of the BSD Unix family.
>> Quite a few Unix programs support Emacs-style key bindings.
>
> That is probably one reason.  But the Mail.app and TextEdit.app on Mac 
> OSX
> are not descendant from any BSD programs, so Apple is extending these
> bindings to new programs as well.
>
> My point being, making CUA default on Mac is not going to give
> Mac users what they expect.  Mac should not be said to use the same
> "agreed" key bindings as Gnome/KDE/MS Windows in this regard.  Now if
> CUA mode could use M-x/M-x/M-v on Mac, then we could discuss about
> making it the default on Macs also.
>
> 	Jan D.
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Emacs-devel mailing list
> Emacs-devel@gnu.org
> http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-devel

Re: Default Emacs keybindings (was: Re: Menu suggestion)

[Kim F. Storm]

Steven Tamm <steventamm@mac.com> writes:

> > My point being, making CUA default on Mac is not going to give
> > Mac users what they expect.
> 
> I'm with you 100%.  The only sensible CUA-mode on the Mac wouldn't
> work; mostly because the default action-modifier is Command and not
> control.   So emacs -nw would never DTRT.   Making CUA the default
> would be counter-productive to me unless it was mapped to
> Command-Z,X,C, and V (in a sense, regardless of the modifier to which
> Command is mapped).    Since Command can be mapped to Control, Meta,
> or Alt; the "Mac bindings" should be able to map to either M- or to
> A-.

How can I check which alternative to use in lisp ?

Looking at mac-command-key-is-meta and maybe mac-reverse-ctrl-meta is
probably the right thing to do, but I'm not sure I fully understand
the meaning and relationship between those vars.  E.g which setting
corresponds to Command = control ?

-- 
Kim F. Storm <storm@cua.dk> http://www.cua.dk

Re: Default Emacs keybindings (was: Re: Menu suggestion)

[Steven Tamm]

(if mac-command-key-is-meta
     (if mac-reverse-ctrl-meta 'C 'M)
     'A)

On Apr 27, 2004, at 8:17 AM, Kim F. Storm wrote:

> Steven Tamm <steventamm@mac.com> writes:
>
>>> My point being, making CUA default on Mac is not going to give
>>> Mac users what they expect.
>>
>> I'm with you 100%.  The only sensible CUA-mode on the Mac wouldn't
>> work; mostly because the default action-modifier is Command and not
>> control.   So emacs -nw would never DTRT.   Making CUA the default
>> would be counter-productive to me unless it was mapped to
>> Command-Z,X,C, and V (in a sense, regardless of the modifier to which
>> Command is mapped).    Since Command can be mapped to Control, Meta,
>> or Alt; the "Mac bindings" should be able to map to either M- or to
>> A-.
>
> How can I check which alternative to use in lisp ?
>
> Looking at mac-command-key-is-meta and maybe mac-reverse-ctrl-meta is
> probably the right thing to do, but I'm not sure I fully understand
> the meaning and relationship between those vars.  E.g which setting
> corresponds to Command = control ?
>
> -- 
> Kim F. Storm <storm@cua.dk> http://www.cua.dk
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Emacs-devel mailing list
> Emacs-devel@gnu.org
> http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-devel

Re: Default Emacs keybindings (was: Re: Menu suggestion)

[Piet van Oostrum]

>>>>> "Jan D." <jan.h.d@swipnet.se> (JD) wrote:

>>> From: "Jan D." <jan.h.d@swipnet.se>
>>> Date: Mon, 26 Apr 2004 15:26:44 +0200
>>> 
>>> Also, many applications on Mac OS X does handle C-a, C-e, C-f, C-p and
>>> so on the way Emacs does.
>> 
>> That's because AFAIK Mac OSX is a descendant of the BSD Unix family.
>> Quite a few Unix programs support Emacs-style key bindings.

JD> That is probably one reason.  But the Mail.app and TextEdit.app on Mac OSX
JD> are not descendant from any BSD programs, so Apple is extending these
JD> bindings to new programs as well.

Cocoa applications have these bindings in text fields.
-- 
Piet van Oostrum <piet@cs.uu.nl>
URL: http://www.cs.uu.nl/~piet [PGP]
Private email: P.van.Oostrum@hccnet.nl

Re: Default Emacs keybindings (was: Re: Menu suggestion)

[Richard Stallman]

Emacs is primarily for superusers.  In my vision of the GNU system, we
should change GNOME so that it presents Emacs as the editor, and GNOME
programs should offer Emacs key bindings wherever they could be used.

Re: Default Emacs keybindings (was: Re: Menu suggestion)

[Lars Brinkhoff]

Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org> writes:
> Emacs is primarily for superusers.  In my vision of the GNU system, we
> should change GNOME so that it presents Emacs as the editor, and GNOME
> programs should offer Emacs key bindings wherever they could be used.

I think it would be nice if every editable text field in GNOME were
actually an Emacs buffer.

-- 
Lars Brinkhoff,         Services for Unix, Linux, GCC, HTTP
Brinkhoff Consulting    http://www.brinkhoff.se/

Re: Default Emacs keybindings (was: Re: Menu suggestion)

[Jan Nieuwenhuizen]

Lars Brinkhoff writes:

> I think it would be nice if every editable text field in GNOME were
> actually an Emacs buffer.

That would be so very good.  Doesn't that mean that Emacs should be a
bonobo component.  I seem to remember that some preliminary work has
been done on this but was halted?

Jan.

-- 
Jan Nieuwenhuizen <janneke@gnu.org> | GNU LilyPond - The music typesetter
http://www.xs4all.nl/~jantien       | http://www.lilypond.org

Re: Default Emacs keybindings (was: Re: Menu suggestion)

[David Kastrup]

Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org> writes:

> Emacs is primarily for superusers.  In my vision of the GNU system,
> we should change GNOME so that it presents Emacs as the editor,

My GNOME uses Emacs as an Editor (actually, mostly emacsclient):
that's easily configurable.

> and GNOME programs should offer Emacs key bindings wherever they
> could be used.

Basic Emacs keybindings are pretty prevalent.

But I would like to stress a point you make: "Emacs is primarily for
superusers".  A superuser will always be required to learn the editors
he has to maintain, support and explain for the users of the systems
he is a superuser of.  As long as the superuser can't with a good
conscience throw Emacs at his users, he is not free to use the editor
he prefers.

If somebody asks me about a text manipulation problem, and I tell him
"just use this one-liner in Emacs" and he says "Forget it.  I don't
have a week to spare.  How do I do this in KEdit?", this ultimately
forces me to acquire skills with inferior tools in order to kludge
along.

And there are quite a few things that can only reasonably be done with
Emacs.  So I have a vested interest in moving Emacs to a state where
one can throw it at a newbie without preconfiguration and can hope for
a tolerable balance of achieved tasks and incited frustration even on
early parts of the learning curve.  The question "is it really worth
it?" should, if possible, not come up again and again.

-- 
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum

Re: Default Emacs keybindings

[Lars Hansen]

David Kastrup wrote:

>And there are quite a few things that can only reasonably be done with
>Emacs.  So I have a vested interest in moving Emacs to a state where
>one can throw it at a newbie without preconfiguration and can hope for
>a tolerable balance of achieved tasks and incited frustration even on
>early parts of the learning curve.  The question "is it really worth
>it?" should, if possible, not come up again and again.
>  
>
I agree :-)

What I wanted to point out: Emacs can satisfy superusers (maybe the term 
advanced users is more precise) as well as newbies. It is "just" matter 
of an easy way to choose a complete keybinding scheme (in my dreams 
only? ;-)

Re: Default Emacs keybindings (was: Re: Menu suggestion)

[Thien-Thi Nguyen]

David Kastrup <dak@gnu.org> writes:

   As long as the superuser can't with a good conscience throw
   Emacs at his users, he is not free to use the editor he
   prefers.

because naked emacs may be seen as an unkindness in some
cultures, the crafty superuser throws instead an emacs wrapped
in session-, site-, or user-specific customizations.

   If somebody asks me about a text manipulation problem, and
   I tell him "just use this one-liner in Emacs" and he says
   "Forget it.  I don't have a week to spare.  How do I do
   this in KEdit?", this ultimately forces me to acquire
   skills with inferior tools in order to kludge along.

or you could write the one-liner into a file, add five lines
of comment and/or docstring, and place the file in some shared
directory where it can be accessed in the future, and studied
and improved as time permits.  this can be done by all users.

   The question "is it really worth it?" should, if possible,
   not come up again and again.

IMHO, that kind of question is always pertinent.  the answer
may gradually shift from no to yes, as the environment (which
includes machines, regular users, and any superusers floating
in the vicinity) changes.  if the answer does not shift and
the superusers floating in the vicinity do not effect change,
that says more about those superusers than the question.  if
the answer shifts from yes to no precisely due to actions of
the superusers floating in the vicinity, the situation has
degraded into the hell of proprietary software, which is in
the case of emacs, ironic, and in any case, sad.

thi

Re: Default Emacs keybindings (was: Re: Menu suggestion)

[David Kastrup]

Thien-Thi Nguyen <ttn@glug.org> writes:

> David Kastrup <dak@gnu.org> writes:
> 
>    As long as the superuser can't with a good conscience throw
>    Emacs at his users, he is not free to use the editor he
>    prefers.
> 
> because naked emacs may be seen as an unkindness in some cultures,
> the crafty superuser throws instead an emacs wrapped in session-,
> site-, or user-specific customizations.

It is not only in a closed shop that my expertise is appreciated.
For example, I am a frequent poster in comp.text.tex and other Usenet
groups.  I can start advice with "if you use Emacs, it is a matter
of..."  I can't start advice with "if you happen to have a service
contract with me and I installed and maintain your copy of Emacs, you
could..."

It is the difference between "with Emacs, you could" and "with my
Emacs, I can".  The latter is gloating rather than helping.

And I don't think we should strive for superuser lock-in: painful
experiences whenever users switch between administrators.  Emacs
should by and large be delivered in a useful state for everyone
without the need for serious reconfiguration.  The better we can
achieve that goal, the more universal Emacs experience becomes.

>    If somebody asks me about a text manipulation problem, and I tell
>    him "just use this one-liner in Emacs" and he says "Forget it.  I
>    don't have a week to spare.  How do I do this in KEdit?", this
>    ultimately forces me to acquire skills with inferior tools in
>    order to kludge along.
> 
> or you could write the one-liner into a file, add five lines of
> comment and/or docstring, and place the file in some shared
> directory where it can be accessed in the future, and studied and
> improved as time permits.  this can be done by all users.

They will still need to use Emacs.

>    The question "is it really worth it?" should, if possible, not
>    come up again and again.
> 
> IMHO, that kind of question is always pertinent.  the answer
> may gradually shift from no to yes, as the environment (which
> includes machines, regular users, and any superusers floating
> in the vicinity) changes.  if the answer does not shift and
> the superusers floating in the vicinity do not effect change,
> that says more about those superusers than the question.

Superusers stand on the shoulders of developers.  On the shoulder of
giants, even dwarfs can look far.

-- 
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum

Re: Default Emacs keybindings (was: Re: Menu suggestion)

[Thien-Thi Nguyen]

David Kastrup <dak@gnu.org> writes:

   It is the difference between "with Emacs, you could" and "with my
   Emacs, I can".  The latter is gloating rather than helping.

the middle path of the superuser is to find a way to say "with our
Emacs, we can", with "our" being the operative word that implies local
customizations set up by the superuser but (with the right attitudes all
around) maintainable by all the users.

   And I don't think we should strive for superuser lock-in: painful
   experiences whenever users switch between administrators.  Emacs
   should by and large be delivered in a useful state for everyone
   without the need for serious reconfiguration.  The better we can
   achieve that goal, the more universal Emacs experience becomes.

hopefully the crafty superusers are also light-hearted and not prone to
such bouts of insecurity, but in general what superusers do we cannot
control anyway.  i disagree w/ the "by and large" statement on grounds
that it is not feasible to know what is useful for everyone.

   They will still need to use Emacs.

yes (i don't see this as a matter of contention).

   Superusers stand on the shoulders of developers.  On the shoulder of
   giants, even dwarfs can look far.

although we cannot control superusers, they learn from attempts by the
programmers to control users, often by emulation.  if we give superusers
the tools they need to do the "leaf-node programming" that befits their
situation, w/o going overboard and attempting to control them, perhaps
they will in turn treat the users around them w/ similar courtesy.

even more abstractly, it is easier to point out flaws in emulation than
it is to maintain the neutral disenfranchisement of the middle layers in
a relationship.  IMHO, given emacs' maturity and reach, the latter is
not even desirable (although it may have been in the past).

thi

Re: Default Emacs keybindings (was: Re: Menu suggestion)

[Eli Zaretskii]

> From: David Kastrup <dak@gnu.org>
> Date: 27 Apr 2004 11:54:51 +0200
> 
> So I have a vested interest in moving Emacs to a state where one can
> throw it at a newbie without preconfiguration and can hope for a
> tolerable balance of achieved tasks and incited frustration even on
> early parts of the learning curve.

I'm with you on this one, but this goal cannot be really translated
into practical tasks before we agree on what we want the newbie to be
able to accomplish without spending a weekend learning Emacs.  For
example, the basic editing tasks---cursor motion, text insertion and
deletion, and visiting and saving files---support the standard keys
and menu-bar items that every newbie should be able top find easily,
even without reading the docs.

Re: Default Emacs keybindings

[Lars Hansen]

>
>
>The problem is that the Emacs menu code can't handle all the entries:
>
>    Lars' keybindings
>    Kai's keybindings  
>    Richard's keybindings
>    Miles' keybindings
>    ...
>  
>
I think two entries would do: "Emacs classic" and "MS Windows" 
(or-whatever).
That would give most people a reasonable and consistent starting point.

Re: Default Emacs keybindings

[Lars Hansen]

There has been a lot of discussion about which keybindings are the best, 
the fastest, the most convenient, the most intuitive etc. Even which 
keyboard to use.

To me, one thing is clear: People won't ever agree on this, it is matter 
of taste. And why should they?

IMO, it is old-fashioned to expect users to adapt to computer programs, 
instead computer programs should adapt to the users. And since users 
have so different taste, it should be possible in Emacs to change the 
entire keymapping as easily as a choice in the options menu. If this was 
possible, it does not matter too much which keymapping is the default 
(the name of this thread). Even newbies can do that.

I know that there are some compatibility modes available, vi, crisp and 
in particular cua-mode. But these modes just try to fit some keybindings 
into the classic Emacs keymapping scheme rather than define a completely 
new scheme. As an example, cua-mode goes into a lot of trouble to make 
C-x do cut at as well as what it does in the classic Emacs setup. That 
is, with all due respect for cua-mode, not the perfect solution.

In my dreams Emacs comes with two ore more keybinding schemes that one 
can choose in the option menu. Moreover, they are easy to modify so you 
can create your own one.

Do you agree with me that this would be good?
What are the problems in doing it?

I know that manuals are a problem. But at least the ones displayed in 
Emacs (info) could simply lookup the current keybinding.

Re: Default Emacs keybindings

[Miles Bader]

On Mon, May 03, 2004 at 12:32:57PM +0200, Lars Hansen wrote:
> In my dreams Emacs comes with two ore more keybinding schemes that one 
> can choose in the option menu. Moreover, they are easy to modify so you 
> can create your own one.
> 
> Do you agree with me that this would be good?
> What are the problems in doing it?

Well it's not like there's just a big list of bindings somewhere that can be
switched, emacs it has many interacting components, each of which makes some
assumptions about how things work -- and lots of external add-on packages
that do the same.

Some of the assumptions are obvious, e.g., code that does something with
ctl-x-map obviously assumes that C-x is a prefix binding, but others are less
so, e.g., when a package binds `C-c n' to move forward in some way, it's
building on a common assumption that n/p are used for vertical forward-back.

Morever, if you're attempting to emulate another existing standard, you run
into the problem that different interfaces simply have different
functionality and divide up the problems with different granularity.  E.g.,
emacs has C-s, C-r, etc., but windows has
C-f-and-check-a-button-in-a-dialogue-box.  How on earth do you reconcile
those?

I think that there are probably limited spaces where you could do something
easily, but that whole-sale re-theming of keybindings is ... hard.

-Miles
-- 
We live, as we dream -- alone....

Re: Default Emacs keybindings

[Kai Grossjohann]

Lars Hansen <larsh@math.ku.dk> writes:

> Do you agree with me that this would be good?
> What are the problems in doing it?

The problem is that the Emacs menu code can't handle all the entries:

    Lars' keybindings
    Kai's keybindings  
    Richard's keybindings
    Miles' keybindings
    ...

Kai

Menu suggestion

[David Kastrup]

We have the "Options" menu "CUA-style cut and paste"

I think we should rename this to something like

"C-x/C-c/C-v cut and paste"

or "PC-like cut and paste".

Now both names are obviously less complete and accurate as the current
menu.

The problem with the current menu name, however, is that nobody has a
clue what "CUA-style" is.  Or at least: those that _do_ know CUA-style
by name would have no trouble whatsoever to figure out the meaning of
the less precise names.

Whereas the other way round things happen to be different...

-- 
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum

Re: Menu suggestion

[Kim F. Storm]

David Kastrup <dak@gnu.org> writes:

> We have the "Options" menu "CUA-style cut and paste"
> 
> I think we should rename this to something like
> 
> "C-x/C-c/C-v cut and paste"
> 
> or "PC-like cut and paste".
> 
> Now both names are obviously less complete and accurate as the current
> menu.

If you hoover the cursor over that menu item, it says:

        Use C-z/C-x/C-c/C-v for undo/cut/copy/paste

I don't mind changing the menu text if people can agree on
something better.

> 
> The problem with the current menu name, however, is that nobody has a
> clue what "CUA-style" is.  Or at least: those that _do_ know CUA-style
> by name would have no trouble whatsoever to figure out the meaning of
> the less precise names.
> 
> Whereas the other way round things happen to be different...

I had a wild idea some time ago --

Let the tutorial start out by telling about the ability to turn on
CUA-mode for the benefit of users who are used to the C-x C-c etc.
And of course how to do it.

Then, if the user actually turns on CUA-mode at this point (or has
done so already), the tutorial should automatically shift to show how
to use emacs with the CUA-style bindings.  

A big advantage of this would be that the tutorial could just skip all
about native navigation --a user who already uses C-x C-c etc before
he starts learning emacs will also be using the cursor keys, pgdn
pgup, etc.  So there's no reason to tell him about C-f C-b etc, or C-v
M-v etc.  (and C-v doesn't work the emacs way anyway...).

This means that the average user will have a faster path to start
using emacs...

I know the keyboard purist elite is very fond of emacs' traditional
bindings, but they do make emacs more difficult to learn than
emacs+CUA.

WDYT about a CUA-aware tutorial.

-- 
Kim F. Storm <storm@cua.dk> http://www.cua.dk

Re: Menu suggestion

[Richard Stallman]

    If you hoover the cursor over that menu item, it says:

	    Use C-z/C-x/C-c/C-v for undo/cut/copy/paste

There is no need to make the menu item complete
in describing the changes this mode makes.

    C-x/C-c/C-v cut and paste

would be better for the menu item text.
The rest of the info could be in a help string.

    A big advantage of this would be that the tutorial could just skip all
    about native navigation --a user who already uses C-x C-c etc before
    he starts learning emacs will also be using the cursor keys, pgdn
    pgup, etc.  So there's no reason to tell him about C-f C-b etc, or C-v
    M-v etc.  (and C-v doesn't work the emacs way anyway...).

I disagree.  We want users to be offered the chance to learn
the efficient ways to do these things.

Also, this proposal would require two versions of all the translated
tutorials.  That just seems like too much work.

    I know the keyboard purist elite is very fond of emacs' traditional
    bindings, but they do make emacs more difficult to learn than
    emacs+CUA.

Why do you think the traditional Emacs bindings are harder to learn
than these bindings?

Default Emacs keybindings (was: Re: Menu suggestion)

[Per Abrahamsen]

Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org> writes:

> Why do you think the traditional Emacs bindings are harder to learn
> than these bindings?

The are two possibilities:

1. Emacs is not the first computer program the user learns.

In that case, chances is that the user already know and expects the
CUA bindings. 

2. Emacs *is* the first computer program the user learns.

In that case, learning the next computer program will be harder,
because the next computer program will use CUA bindings.

...

In that last decade, a (rough and partial) consensus on key bindings
has been building.  A user can switch between MacOS, MS Windows,
Gnome, and KDE applications, and still expect a certain level of
consistency between the bindings.

I believe it would be in the best long time interest of our community,
if Emacs joined that consensus.  In practice, the CUA bindings (not
the CUA code) should be default, and the documentation should reflect
that.  A very visible and complete "traditional" mode would be needed
though, at least as good as CUA mode, just doing the opposite.

...

In my day job, I write a text based scientific application.  I use
Emacs to edit the setup files and run the application myself, of
course.  But when I teach people to use the application, I cannot in
good conscience teach them to use it with Emacs.  The course is
"nitrogen dynamics in soil", not "Emacs 101".  Instead I pick a lesser
editor, one they haven't used before, but which they can pickup in no
time because it stays within the consensus UI.

Re: Default Emacs keybindings (was: Re: Menu suggestion)

[Luc Teirlinck]

Per Abrahamsen wrote:

   2. Emacs *is* the first computer program the user learns.

   In that case, learning the next computer program will be harder,
   because the next computer program will use CUA bindings.

I guess that must assume that the user is using MS windows or Mac OS
specific applications.  Emacs is _not_ the only application I use and
I have never seen C-c used to copy (in nearly all applications I use
C-c is used in the sense of "interrupt"), I have never seen C-x used
to cut, C-z to undo (instead it systematically seems to mean
"suspend") or C-v to paste (instead it seems to have, outside of
Emacs, a meaning of "insert literally").  Nearly all applications I
use, use key bindings that are inspired by Emacs, or let the user
choose between Emacs or VI style bindings

Sincerely,

Luc.

Re: Default Emacs keybindings

[Per Abrahamsen]

Luc Teirlinck <teirllm@dms.auburn.edu> writes:

> I guess that must assume that the user is using MS windows or Mac OS
> specific applications. 

Or KDE or Gnome applications.

The consensus is less than a decade old, many applications have roots
older than that.

Re: Default Emacs keybindings (was: Re: Menu suggestion)

[Alan Mackenzie]

On Mon, 26 Apr 2004, Per Abrahamsen wrote:

>Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org> writes:

>> Why do you think the traditional Emacs bindings are harder to learn
>> than these bindings?

>The are two possibilities:

>1. Emacs is not the first computer program the user learns.

>In that case, chances is that the user already know and expects the
>CUA bindings. 

>2. Emacs *is* the first computer program the user learns.

>In that case, learning the next computer program will be harder,
>because the next computer program will use CUA bindings.

>...

>In that last decade, a (rough and partial) consensus on key bindings has
>been building.  A user can switch between MacOS, MS Windows, Gnome, and
>KDE applications, and still expect a certain level of consistency
>between the bindings.

The point of these bindings is surely ease of learning rather than ease
of use:  "Just hold down the <shift> and move the cursor!"

>I believe it would be in the best long time interest of our community,
>if Emacs joined that consensus.  In practice, the CUA bindings (not the
>CUA code) should be default, and the documentation should reflect that.
>A very visible and complete "traditional" mode would be needed though,
>at least as good as CUA mode, just doing the opposite.

I can't agree there.  Emacs is very solidly in the "easy to use, a pig to
learn" camp.  If you make make CUA bindings default so as to make it
easier to learn superficially, you'll make it harder to learn "properly".
The result will be masses of users learning it only superficially, and
thus not getting the full benefit of Emacs.  We'll have a product which
is still a pig to learn, but no longers has such good reasons to do so.

[I'm taking it for granted here that the Emacs standard bindings are
vastly superior to the CUA bindings.  If anybody disagrees with me on
this point, please don't use this mailing list to try and change my mind.
;-]

>In my day job, I write a text based scientific application.  I use Emacs
>to edit the setup files and run the application myself, of course.  But
>when I teach people to use the application, I cannot in good conscience
>teach them to use it with Emacs.  The course is "nitrogen dynamics in
>soil", not "Emacs 101".  Instead I pick a lesser editor, one they
>haven't used before, but which they can pickup in no time because it
>stays within the consensus UI.

With all due respect, Emacs is no program for casual users.  It's for
serious programmers or other writers, who're going to be spending
thousands of hours writing/hacking, and for whom the ~hundred hours
learning time is a very sound investment.  Even if Emacs was equipped
with CUA bindings, it still wouldn't be a good tool to give nitrogen
hackers.  Something easier to learn, something more NOxious, like
[proprietory product name deleted] is better here.

-- 
Alan Mackenzie (Munich, Germany)

Re: Default Emacs keybindings (was: Re: Menu suggestion)

[David Kastrup]

Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> writes:

> On Mon, 26 Apr 2004, Per Abrahamsen wrote:
> 
> >In that last decade, a (rough and partial) consensus on key bindings has
> >been building.  A user can switch between MacOS, MS Windows, Gnome, and
> >KDE applications, and still expect a certain level of consistency
> >between the bindings.
> 
> The point of these bindings is surely ease of learning rather than ease
> of use:  "Just hold down the <shift> and move the cursor!"
> 
> >I believe it would be in the best long time interest of our
> >community, if Emacs joined that consensus.  In practice, the CUA
> >bindings (not the CUA code) should be default, and the
> >documentation should reflect that.  A very visible and complete
> >"traditional" mode would be needed though, at least as good as CUA
> >mode, just doing the opposite.
> 
> I can't agree there.

Me neither.  If we have a need for a separate significantly different
traditional mode, we lose most of our advantage.  CUA-mode, IIRC,
assigns special meaning to its characters only when there is an active
selection.  It is a compromise, of course.  (I think we still are not
there with regard to consistent selection behavior where we should be,
but that's a somewhat different problem).

If what I think I understood from the CUA descriptions is correct, no
key sequences starting with C-c or C-x can be used with an active
selection.  For example, selecting an active region and using
C-c C-e in AUCTeX (inserts environment around an active region, if
there is one) would not work in CUA mode, ever.  Neither would any of
a number of minor mode bindings designed to also work on active
regions.

> Emacs is very solidly in the "easy to use, a pig to learn" camp.  If
> you make make CUA bindings default so as to make it easier to learn
> superficially, you'll make it harder to learn "properly".  The
> result will be masses of users learning it only superficially, and
> thus not getting the full benefit of Emacs.

Which is their full right to do.  99% of all video recorder owners
learn the operation of their device only superficially, thus not
getting the full benefit of video recorders.

Still, nobody suggests that the "solution" is to make the handling of
a video recorder so obfuscate to the average person familiar with
other devices, that he will be lost without reading through an
instruction booklet.

Who is to decide that somebody being able to utilize a tool without
having full grasp of all its possibilities is a bad thing?

> >In my day job, I write a text based scientific application.  I use
> >Emacs to edit the setup files and run the application myself, of
> >course.  But when I teach people to use the application, I cannot
> >in good conscience teach them to use it with Emacs.  The course is
> >"nitrogen dynamics in soil", not "Emacs 101".  Instead I pick a
> >lesser editor, one they haven't used before, but which they can
> >pickup in no time because it stays within the consensus UI.
> 
> With all due respect, Emacs is no program for casual users.

With all due respect, who are you to decree who should not be using
Emacs?

> It's for serious programmers or other writers, who're going to be
> spending thousands of hours writing/hacking, and for whom the
> ~hundred hours learning time is a very sound investment.

I am a serious programmer and other writer.  And my learning time is
not a sound investment if I can't use Emacs as an application platform
for editing functionality that I can never hope to have customers of
mine wanting to use.

> Even if Emacs was equipped with CUA bindings, it still wouldn't be a
> good tool to give nitrogen hackers.

So we need more changes if we want to have Emacs at one time something
which does not require turning people into hackers before they can
expect to be comfortable using Emacs.

That's ok.  Nobody expects that we will finish this task in a single
step.  And blindly enabling any mode that is supposed to make things
more mainstream-like, without assessing its drawbacks and trying to
remove them where possible, would be insane.

But such modes at least can provide a basis for discussion in what
manner we can accommodate people without a determination to completely
start from scratch before being allowed to start using a good editor.

-- 
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum

Re: Default Emacs keybindings (was: Re: Menu suggestion)

[Kim F. Storm]

David Kastrup <dak@gnu.org> writes:

> Me neither.  If we have a need for a separate significantly different
> traditional mode, we lose most of our advantage.  CUA-mode, IIRC,
> assigns special meaning to its characters only when there is an active
> selection.  

Right.

>             It is a compromise, of course.  (I think we still are not
> there with regard to consistent selection behavior where we should be,
> but that's a somewhat different problem).

Can you emphasize on what's missing...


> If what I think I understood from the CUA descriptions is correct, no
> key sequences starting with C-c or C-x can be used with an active
> selection.  For example, selecting an active region and using
> C-c C-e in AUCTeX (inserts environment around an active region, if
> there is one) would not work in CUA mode, ever.  

That's completely untrue!!

There are actually three ways to enter C-c C-e even when the region is
active:

1) Type the C-c C-e very quickly (the quicklyness is configurable).
2) Type C-c C-c quickly, followed by C-e
3) Type S-C-c C-e

1 can be used for a sequence of control characters (i.e. where you hold
  down CTRL during the whole sequence).

2 can be used generally, typing C-c C-c (or C-x C-x) very quickly is
  trivial, then you can complete the rest of the sequence at your own pace.

3 can be used generally, at any pace.

Which method to prefer is a personal choice.  I use all of them, but
in reality, I use them VERY rarely -- and I have cua mode turned on
permanently, and have been using it (in many versions) since 1997.

One reason I don't need them is that cua has integrated register and
rectangle support in the normal C-c and C-x bindings, i.e. I never
use any of the standard register or rectangle commands.

Example:  Mark a rectangle, copy it to a register, move to another
place and insert the rectangle from that register:

S-RET (start marking of rectangle)

move the cursor to extend the rectangle (notice that with cua you
can extend the rectangle beyond the end of the current line).

M-2 C-c  => copy rectangle to register 2

.. move somewhere else

M-2 C-v  => insert rectangle from register 2


It's just so simple, that I don't need the "efficient" emacs
bindings (that I never manage to remember anyway).

So for me, this is practically a non-problem.

> > Emacs is very solidly in the "easy to use, a pig to learn" camp.  If
> > you make make CUA bindings default so as to make it easier to learn
> > superficially, you'll make it harder to learn "properly". 


I don't see how C-x r r 2 is "easier to use" than M-2 C-c -- but I
agree that it is "a pig to learn" :-)

> > Even if Emacs was equipped with CUA bindings, it still wouldn't be a
> > good tool to give nitrogen hackers.
> 
> So we need more changes if we want to have Emacs at one time something
> which does not require turning people into hackers before they can
> expect to be comfortable using Emacs.

Could we have some comments from users of CUA, please!

The current thread of emacs users who have never used CUA discuss
whether it is useful or not seems like a waste of time...

> 
> That's ok.  Nobody expects that we will finish this task in a single
> step.  And blindly enabling any mode that is supposed to make things
> more mainstream-like, without assessing its drawbacks and trying to
> remove them where possible, would be insane.

Please list those drawbacks -- so I can fix them.

-- 
Kim F. Storm <storm@cua.dk> http://www.cua.dk

Re: Default Emacs keybindings

[Stefan Daschek]

storm@cua.dk (Kim F. Storm) writes:

> Could we have some comments from users of CUA, please!

I use CUA, however ... my .emacs contains (setq cua-enable-cua-keys
nil). That's because I've been using S-Del, C-Ins and S-Ins for cut,
copy, and paste respectively since the old days of Borland C++ 3.1
running under MS DOS 5. Since those days I'm used to selecting text by
holding the shift key and then using the cursor keys (interestingly
enough even my current mobile phone, a nokia 7650, uses this
convention - holding down a modifier key and moving the cursor - for
selecting text).

Those shortcuts still work in (almost) all applications under Windows
or KDE/Gnome, in my favourite terminal emulator (PuTTY) they are even
the only way to do copy&paste from the keyboard.

Of course there is a drawback: S-Del, C-Ins, and S-Ins, as well as
shifted cursor movement do not work in emacs -nw. That's why I find
myself constantly using Tramp for editing remote files. I do use Emacs
remotely over ssh, but only for quite simple editing tasks.

As far as "learning emacs" is concerned: When I started using Emacs,
among the first things I did was enabling pc-selection-mode, finding
out about CUA, and defining a bunch of keybindings that are common
under standard Windows applications (e.g. C-s for save-buffer, M-F4
for save-buffers-kill-emacs, etc.). I did that not because I wanted
Emacs to be like any other Windows application, but just to make it
possible for me to learn Emacs gradually. After all, I had to get my
work done, and as I had decided that the only way of really learning
Emacs is to really use it, I had to get my work done with Emacs. Even
with all the customizations I did the first weeks of using Emacs were
quite hard and sometimes frustrating for me, many things did not work
as I expected and I felt less productive than before. But as time went
by I gradually learned about "The Emacs Way of doing it" and so I got
rid of many of those "backward-compatibility" customizations -- not
all at once, but bit by bit -- and started using all those great
unique features of Emacs. 

Nowadays I sometimes find myself pressing C-x C-s to save a document
in Powerpoint or Excel ... :)

My point is: I think it's neither possible nor sensible to learn Emacs
from scratch if you have already some experience with other "standard"
applications (and nowadays it could be quite hard to find someone who
hasn't this experiences). In Emacs' default configuration almost
nothing works as one would expect it, and so the possibility of
getting frustrated and never have a look at Emacs again is quite high.
However, what does work quite well is to start using Emacs almost like
a standard Windows/Gnome/KDE/MacOS application and then gradually
learn about the powerful Emacs features.

I think Emacs should encourage new users willing to learn Emacs as
much as possible. Maybe it would be a good idea to implement something
like a "First-time-user's wizard"? This wizard could guide a new user
through several basic (but important) steps of customizing. For
example, it could ask the user something like "Enable C-x/C-c/C-v
shortcuts for copy&paste?" Together with this question Emacs should
display a short explanation that (and how) enabling this option will
interfere with the standard Emacs keybindings and how to turn it off
again etc. 

I'm not sure about what other questions this "wizard" should ask,
maybe it would be necessary to make a survey among Emacs-"newbies" to
find out.

Okay enough for now, any comments appreciated :)

ciao,
noniq

Re: Default Emacs keybindings

[Per Abrahamsen]

Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> writes:

> With all due respect, Emacs is no program for casual users.  

True, today.

Lars Hansen described our choice here pretty well.

And no, I do not agree that the Emacs key bindings are inherently
superior for experienced users.  They just happen to be what we are
used to.

Re: Default Emacs keybindings

[Miles Bader]

On Fri, Apr 30, 2004 at 03:06:00PM +0200, Per Abrahamsen wrote:
> And no, I do not agree that the Emacs key bindings are inherently
> superior for experienced users.  They just happen to be what we are
> used to.

Well it kind of depends on _which_ keybindings you're talking about -- some
emacs keybindings are just familiar, but others are pretty clearly more
better in some cases.  Obviously C-w is basically no better or worse than
C-x, but the emacs-movment vs. arrow keys issue is quite different, the
former being (obviously) far more efficient for a user that meets their
criteria, but the latter being easier for an inexperienced user.

Unfortunately in this limited namespace, it's hard to mix'n'match (despite
Kim's valiant efforts), but luckily we _can_ have both arrow keys and
emacs-movement keys.

Also luckily, emacs is popular enough among developers that a lot of
non-emacs software either understands basic emacs keystrokes (mozilla) or can
be easily configured to do so (gnome).

-Miles
-- 
`The suburb is an obsolete and contradictory form of human settlement'

Re: Default Emacs keybindings

[Richard Stallman]

    And no, I do not agree that the Emacs key bindings are inherently
    superior for experienced users.  They just happen to be what we are
    used to.

I recall that someone did an experiment around 1980 to compare the
efficiency of editing with arrow keys and with C-f, C-b, etc.  The
result was that the arrow keys were less efficient.

Re: Default Emacs keybindings

[Andreas Schwab]

Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org> writes:

> I recall that someone did an experiment around 1980 to compare the
> efficiency of editing with arrow keys and with C-f, C-b, etc.  The
> result was that the arrow keys were less efficient.

Probably he didn't use a keyboard with the control key at the "wrong"
place.  :-)

Andreas.

-- 
Andreas Schwab, SuSE Labs, schwab@suse.de
SuSE Linux AG, Maxfeldstraße 5, 90409 Nürnberg, Germany
Key fingerprint = 58CA 54C7 6D53 942B 1756  01D3 44D5 214B 8276 4ED5
"And now for something completely different."

Re: Default Emacs keybindings

[Richard Stallman]

    Probably he didn't use a keyboard with the control key at the "wrong"
    place.  :-)

You can get the Happy Hacking keyboard, which has control in the right
place.  Also, Linux has some sort of feature to redefine keys on the
keyboard.  My "caps lock" key is really a control key, and that is
what I normally use for the job.

Re: Default Emacs keybindings

[Miles Bader]

On Sun, May 02, 2004 at 03:52:07PM -0400, Richard Stallman wrote:
>     Probably he didn't use a keyboard with the control key at the "wrong"
>     place.  :-)
> 
> You can get the Happy Hacking keyboard, which has control in the right
> place.

Hey, yeah, I second that -- I've got two HH keyboards!

Besides correct key layout, they're also just nice svelte elegant keyboards,
a great change from the usual `10,000 ton keyboard entry battle-group'
usually included as standard.

The current `HH Lite 2' model even has arrow keys for non-believers like
Stefan and Kim. :-|  [They're like laptop arrow keys -- slightly smaller than
average keys, very close to the main section underneath the right shift key.]

-Miles
-- 
`Suppose Korea goes to the World Cup final against Japan and wins,' Moon said.
`All the past could be forgiven.'   [NYT]

Re: Default Emacs keybindings

[Lars Brinkhoff]

Miles Bader <miles@gnu.org> writes:
> On Sun, May 02, 2004 at 03:52:07PM -0400, Richard Stallman wrote:
> >     Probably he didn't use a keyboard with the control key at the "wrong"
> >     place.  :-)
> > You can get the Happy Hacking keyboard, which has control in the
> > right place.
> Hey, yeah, I second that -- I've got two HH keyboards!

I third that -- I have three.

-- 
Lars Brinkhoff,         Services for Unix, Linux, GCC, HTTP
Brinkhoff Consulting    http://www.brinkhoff.se/

Re: Default Emacs keybindings

[Kim F. Storm]

Lars Brinkhoff <lars@nocrew.org> writes:

> Miles Bader <miles@gnu.org> writes:
> > On Sun, May 02, 2004 at 03:52:07PM -0400, Richard Stallman wrote:
> > >     Probably he didn't use a keyboard with the control key at the "wrong"
> > >     place.  :-)
> > > You can get the Happy Hacking keyboard, which has control in the
> > > right place.
> > Hey, yeah, I second that -- I've got two HH keyboards!
> 
> I third that -- I have three.
> 


Now I understand -- to use the emacs bindings you have to buy a
special keyboard.  How convenient :-|

Are you serious ?

-- 
Kim F. Storm <storm@cua.dk> http://www.cua.dk

Re: Default Emacs keybindings

[Miles Bader]

On Mon, May 03, 2004 at 07:53:40AM +0200, Kim F. Storm wrote:
> Now I understand -- to use the emacs bindings you have to buy a
> special keyboard.  How convenient :-|

Geez, Kim, it's just a very nice keyboard.

To be honest, a standard keyboard isn't really much good for typing commands
at all -- on a standard keyboard _none_ of the non-shift modifier keys is in
a convenient position for the most efficient use of `modeless' editor like
emacs.

None.

So you really can't blame the emacs command set -- it's simply not possible
to do much better without either remapping something, or buying a better
keyboard.

> Are you serious ?

What about you?

-Miles
-- 
(\(\
(^.^)
(")")
*This is the cute bunny virus, please copy this into your sig so it can spread.

Re: Default Emacs keybindings

[Kim F. Storm]

Miles Bader <miles@gnu.org> writes:

> On Mon, May 03, 2004 at 07:53:40AM +0200, Kim F. Storm wrote:
> > Now I understand -- to use the emacs bindings you have to buy a
> > special keyboard.  How convenient :-|
> 
> Geez, Kim, it's just a very nice keyboard.

I don't doubt that.

> 
> To be honest, a standard keyboard isn't really much good for typing commands
> at all -- on a standard keyboard _none_ of the non-shift modifier keys is in
> a convenient position for the most efficient use of `modeless' editor like
> emacs.
> 
> None.

Well, I get by quite alright.  But they are not in an ideal position.
But reality is that the keys are where they are...

You and I may know how to make emacs (and other apps) use a better
keyboard layout (or may buy another keyboard), but most users don't
have that option (or don't know that they should even consider this).
They just think that emacs' default bindings are awkward...

> 
> So you really can't blame the emacs command set -- it's simply not possible
> to do much better without either remapping something, or buying a better
> keyboard.

I understand what you are saying, but I also think you contradict yourself.

Why insist on teaching (in the tutorial) new emacs users (which I bet
don't have a HH keyboard) to use bindings which you just admitted are
NOT convenient to use with today's standard keyboard layout.  

If those bindings are only superior in a special setup, why waste time
teaching/learning them?  That time would be better spent on teaching
some of the _useful_ features of emacs.

> 
> > Are you serious ?
> 
> What about you?

I am very serious!

-- 
Kim F. Storm <storm@cua.dk> http://www.cua.dk

Re: Default Emacs keybindings

[Miles Bader]

On Mon, May 03, 2004 at 09:32:47AM +0200, Kim F. Storm wrote:
> Why insist on teaching (in the tutorial) new emacs users (which I bet
> don't have a HH keyboard) to use bindings which you just admitted are
> NOT convenient to use with today's standard keyboard layout.  

It's not a boolean.

emacs-bindings + proper-keyboard  >  emacs-bindings  >  standard-bindings

> If those bindings are only superior in a special setup, why waste time
> teaching/learning them?  That time would be better spent on teaching some
> of the _useful_ features of emacs.

In the case of the particular bindings under discussion -- arrow keys
vs. C-f &c., the emacs keys are better bindings even with a suboptimal
control-key placement, because the arrow keys are enormous lose
efficiency-wise.

Whether they are sufficiently important to discuss first in the tutorial [*],
I have no idea, but those bindings are useful, and I think a good thing to
teach.

[*] Historically they were, because often users didn't have any arrow keys!
    Obviously this is not true anymore.

-Miles
-- 
A zen-buddhist walked into a pizza shop and
said, "Make me one with everything."

Re: Default Emacs keybindings

[Kai Grossjohann]

Miles Bader <miles@gnu.org> writes:

> To be honest, a standard keyboard isn't really much good for typing commands
> at all -- on a standard keyboard _none_ of the non-shift modifier keys is in
> a convenient position for the most efficient use of `modeless' editor like
> emacs.

The ESC key is also in the wrong position for that popular modeful
editor.  (What's the opposite of modeless?)

HHKL has ESC to the left of 1, which is where it should be.

Kai

Re: Default Emacs keybindings

[Jose E. Marchesi]

    On Mon, May 03, 2004 at 07:53:40AM +0200, Kim F. Storm wrote:
    > Now I understand -- to use the emacs bindings you have to buy a
    > special keyboard.  How convenient :-|
    
    Geez, Kim, it's just a very nice keyboard.
    
    To be honest, a standard keyboard isn't really much good for typing commands
    at all -- on a standard keyboard _none_ of the non-shift modifier keys is in
    a convenient position for the most efficient use of `modeless' editor like
    emacs.
    
    None.

I think the "normal" ctrl key position is ok, as long as there is
another ctrl key on the right of the keyboard. For a C-X keybinding
where X is on the right of the keyboard (such as C-p) i use the left
ctrl key. On the other hand, for a C-X keybinding where X is on the
left of the keyboard (such as C-a) i use the right ctrl key. I find
this way very comfortable.

So i only find advantages in using capslock as a ctrl key if the
right ctrl key is not used (or even not present on the keyboard). 

Unfortunately, not all keyboards has a right ctrl key. Indeed, i
usually use mac machines, so i must remap one of the keys with
extrange symbols located on the right of the spacebar to act as a
ctrl key.

Just my 2 euro cents.


-- 
José E. Marchesi 

<jemarch@gnu.org>         http://www.gnu.org     GNU No es Unix!
<jemarch@es.gnu.org>      http://es.gnu.org      GNU España

.---------------.
|    .-[]--.    |
|   [] `>[]-|   |  BEE GNU/Hurd            http://bee.es.gnu.org
|    `-.[]<-'   |               
._______________.    

Re: Default Emacs keybindings

[Jan Nieuwenhuizen]

Kim F. Storm writes:

> Now I understand -- to use the emacs bindings you have to buy a
> special keyboard.  How convenient :-|

This is what I seemed to notice too.  I do buy special keyboards,
or else do remapping.

> Are you serious ?

I think we may be getting somewhere here.  If the consensus is that
Emacs bindings (which I like, btw) are only convenient with special
keyboards or custom mappings, it might be good to reconsider the
default mapping that is used.  It may be helpful (for new users) if
the default mapping that Emacs uses is actually useful with the type
of keyboard that they are most probable to use.

Btw, Kim, (no offence intended), I think it makes a lot of sense for
people like (you and?) me, who use computers a lot, to look around for
and carefully choose a keyboard (and pointing device) that could make
their `work' more easy or relaxed.  I find the keyboard one of my most
important tools, that I like to pick carefully.

Jan.

-- 
Jan Nieuwenhuizen <janneke@gnu.org> | GNU LilyPond - The music typesetter
http://www.xs4all.nl/~jantien       | http://www.lilypond.org

Re: Default Emacs keybindings

[Kim F. Storm]

Jan Nieuwenhuizen <janneke@gnu.org> writes:

> Kim F. Storm writes:
> 
> > Now I understand -- to use the emacs bindings you have to buy a
> > special keyboard.  How convenient :-|
> 
> This is what I seemed to notice too.  I do buy special keyboards,
> or else do remapping.

Sure.

> 
> > Are you serious ?
> 
> I think we may be getting somewhere here.  If the consensus is that
> Emacs bindings (which I like, btw) are only convenient with special
> keyboards or custom mappings, it might be good to reconsider the
> default mapping that is used.  It may be helpful (for new users) if
> the default mapping that Emacs uses is actually useful with the type
> of keyboard that they are most probable to use.

Exactly my point.  IMO, it is good that some of the developers
actually use the same keyboard (good or bad) as most of our users.

> 
> Btw, Kim, (no offence intended), I think it makes a lot of sense for
> people like (you and?) me, who use computers a lot, to look around for
> and carefully choose a keyboard (and pointing device) that could make
> their `work' more easy or relaxed.  I find the keyboard one of my most
> important tools, that I like to pick carefully.

I really liked my old PC keyboard which had the (10) function keys
to the left of the keyboard, the control key was in the "caps lock"
position, the "alt" key in the "ctrl" key position, and the esc key
to the left of the [1] key (IIRC).

It took some time to get used to the current PC keyboard layout, but
since I use different computers (and keyboards), I think would have a
hard time using them if I had to mentally switch keyboard layout
(ctrl/alt) depending on which PC I was currently using.

Anyway, as long as I can type as fast as my brain can think :-)
does it matter which keyboard I use?

BTW, I do carry a couple of old 3-button logitech mouse around that I
happen to like :-)

-- 
Kim F. Storm <storm@cua.dk> http://www.cua.dk

Re: Default Emacs keybindings

[Jan Nieuwenhuizen]

Kim F. Storm writes:

> Exactly my point.  IMO, it is good that some of the developers
> actually use the same keyboard (good or bad) as most of our users.

Good point.

> Anyway, as long as I can type as fast as my brain can think :-)
> does it matter which keyboard I use?

One of the main reasons for using dvorak-caps mapping or my maltron
keyboard is not so much speed of typing, but rather the more relaxed
feeling, less and smaller movements, with an eye on RSI prevention.

> BTW, I do carry a couple of old 3-button logitech mouse around that I
> happen to like :-)

:-) I think it would be good if we could get more gui app writers (the
gnome people, eg) to think about providing most efficient/convenient
ways to do stuff without having to use the mouse.

Jan.

-- 
Jan Nieuwenhuizen <janneke@gnu.org> | GNU LilyPond - The music typesetter
http://www.xs4all.nl/~jantien       | http://www.lilypond.org

Re: Default Emacs keybindings

[Per Abrahamsen]

Jan Nieuwenhuizen <janneke@gnu.org> writes:

> Btw, Kim, (no offence intended), I think it makes a lot of sense for
> people like (you and?) me, who use computers a lot, to look around for
> and carefully choose a keyboard (and pointing device) that could make
> their `work' more easy or relaxed.

I used to do that.  Back when I was chained to a terminal down in the
cellar, and my only human contact was the supervisor who handed me a
bowel of gruel twice a day.  These days, I tend to move around a bit,
work on different computers, talk to users, and help them on their own
computers.  This has gotten a lot easier after I gave up special
hardware with foot pedals and the like, and instead learned to be
productive with standard tools and minimal customizations.

Re: Default Emacs keybindings

[Kenichi Handa]

In article <87n04paner.fsf@peder.flower>, Jan Nieuwenhuizen <janneke@gnu.org> writes:

> I think we may be getting somewhere here.  If the consensus is that
> Emacs bindings (which I like, btw) are only convenient with special
> keyboards or custom mappings, it might be good to reconsider the
> default mapping that is used.  It may be helpful (for new users) if
> the default mapping that Emacs uses is actually useful with the type
> of keyboard that they are most probable to use.

Isn't it possible to make Emacs custom mappings if
requested, at least on X window?  For instance, M-x
swap-ctrl-capslock RET.

---
Ken'ichi HANDA
handa@m17n.org

Re: Default Emacs keybindings

[Jan Nieuwenhuizen]

Kenichi Handa writes:

> Isn't it possible to make Emacs custom mappings if requested, at
> least on X window?  For instance, M-x swap-ctrl-capslock RET.

Maybe so, but that mostly useless, as it doesn't fix it for other
applications.

Jan.

-- 
Jan Nieuwenhuizen <janneke@gnu.org> | GNU LilyPond - The music typesetter
http://www.xs4all.nl/~jantien       | http://www.lilypond.org

Re: Default Emacs keybindings

[Masatake YAMATO]

> > Isn't it possible to make Emacs custom mappings if requested, at
> > least on X window?  For instance, M-x swap-ctrl-capslock RET.

I like this idea.
 
> Maybe so, but that mostly useless, as it doesn't fix it for other
> applications.

swap-ctrl-capslock may be useful to create .Xmodmap file to swap control 
and capslock for other applications just after installing an Operating 
System to your PC. swap-ctrl-capslock is something like bootstrap code.

Masatake YAMATO

Re: Default Emacs keybindings

[Kenichi Handa]

In article <87zn8p914r.fsf@peder.flower>, Jan Nieuwenhuizen <janneke@gnu.org> writes:
> Kenichi Handa writes:
>>  Isn't it possible to make Emacs custom mappings if requested, at
>>  least on X window?  For instance, M-x swap-ctrl-capslock RET.

> Maybe so, but that mostly useless, as it doesn't fix it for other
> applications.

If we can have something like swap-ctrl-capslock, we can
mention it in TUTORIAL and make at least Emacs users
happier.

And, if we also want Emacs to fix mapping for the other
applications (I'm not sure), we can invoke the shell command
"xmodmap -e ..." which should fix for all applications
running on the same display.

---
Ken'ichi HANDA
handa@m17n.org

Re: Default Emacs keybindings

[Richard Stallman]

I do not want to change the Emacs key bindings drastically for the
usual keyboard mapping.  We already support the keys that beginning
users normally use.  That is enough catering to them.

What we should do is include prominent documentation telling users how
to remap their caps-lock key, with specific recipes.  (I have no idea
where to find this information for GNU/Linux.)

Re: Default Emacs keybindings

[Luc Teirlinck]

Richard Stallman wrote:

   What we should do is include prominent documentation telling users how
   to remap their caps-lock key, with specific recipes.  (I have no idea
   where to find this information for GNU/Linux.)

>From M-x man xmodmap:

       One of the more irritating differences  between  keyboards
       is  the  location  of  the Control and Shift Lock keys.  A
       common use of xmodmap is to swap these two  keys  as  fol-
       lows:

            !
            ! Swap Caps_Lock and Control_L
            !
            remove Lock = Caps_Lock
            remove Control = Control_L
            keysym Control_L = Caps_Lock
            keysym Caps_Lock = Control_L
            add Lock = Caps_Lock
            add Control = Control_L

I would guess that this works not just on GNU/Linux, but also on
various varieties of Unix as well.  I do not know about other
operating systems.

Sincerely,

Luc.

Re: Default Emacs keybindings

[Eli Zaretskii]

> Date: Mon, 3 May 2004 17:59:47 -0500 (CDT)
> From: Luc Teirlinck <teirllm@dms.auburn.edu>
> 
> Richard Stallman wrote:
> 
>    What we should do is include prominent documentation telling users how
>    to remap their caps-lock key, with specific recipes.  (I have no idea
>    where to find this information for GNU/Linux.)
> 
> >From M-x man xmodmap:

xmodmap is only for working on X, IIRC it doesn't help if one runs
Emacs from a console or logs in remotely via a terminal emulator.  So
this is not a universal solution, not even on a GNU/Linux machine.

Re: Default Emacs keybindings

[David Kastrup]

Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> writes:

> > Date: Mon, 3 May 2004 17:59:47 -0500 (CDT)
> > From: Luc Teirlinck <teirllm@dms.auburn.edu>
> > 
> > Richard Stallman wrote:
> > 
> >    What we should do is include prominent documentation telling users how
> >    to remap their caps-lock key, with specific recipes.  (I have no idea
> >    where to find this information for GNU/Linux.)
> > 
> > >From M-x man xmodmap:
> 
> xmodmap is only for working on X, IIRC it doesn't help if one runs
> Emacs from a console or logs in remotely via a terminal emulator.  So
> this is not a universal solution, not even on a GNU/Linux machine.

Catering for the most common usage is better than catering for none.

-- 
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum

Re: Default Emacs keybindings

[Alan Mackenzie]

On 4 May 2004, Eli Zaretskii wrote:

>> Date: Mon, 3 May 2004 17:59:47 -0500 (CDT)
>> From: Luc Teirlinck <teirllm@dms.auburn.edu>

>> Richard Stallman wrote:

>>    What we should do is include prominent documentation telling users
>>    how to remap their caps-lock key, with specific recipes.  (I have
>>    no idea where to find this information for GNU/Linux.)

The relevant man pages are loadkeys(1), dumpkeys(1), showkey(1) and
keytables(5)

>> >From M-x man xmodmap:

>xmodmap is only for working on X, IIRC it doesn't help if one runs Emacs
>from a console or logs in remotely via a terminal emulator.  So this is
>not a universal solution, not even on a GNU/Linux machine.

The Right Way to do this is to modify the Linux keyboard driver.  For
Linux running on an Intel PC, create a two-line file called (say)
/etc/keytab.CoLo with the following contents:

keycode 29 = Caps_Lock
keycode 58 = Control

Then, at a bash prompt (or, eventually, in a start-up script), do:

# loadkeys /etc/keytab.CoLo

[The scan codes of the pertinent keys on different hardware can be found
with showkeys, for example.]

There is a bug in the keyboard driver of my (shamefully out of date)
Linux kernel, in which after running this file, the keyboard is left in
"permanent control" state.  This can be worked around by specifying in
/etc/keytab.CoLo "Caps_Lock" or "Control" individually for each modifier
combination, as follows. 

keycode 29 = Caps_Lock Caps_Lock Caps_Lock Caps_Lock Caps_Lock Caps_Lock Caps_Lock Caps_Lock Caps_Lock Caps_Lock Caps_Lock
keycode 58 = Control Control Control Control Control Control Control Control Control Control Control

The number of "Caps_Lock"s necessary can be found from "dumpkeys -i".

-- 
Alan Mackenzie (Munich, Germany)

Re: Default Emacs keybindings

[Stefan Monnier]

> The Right Way to do this is to modify the Linux keyboard driver.

Any way which is unavailable to GNU/Linux *users* (as opposed to
administrators) can't be The Right Way.  So editing a /etc/foobar
file is out of the question.


        Stefan

Re: Default Emacs keybindings

[Alan Mackenzie]

On 4 May 2004, Stefan Monnier wrote:

>> The Right Way to do this is to modify the Linux keyboard driver.

>Any way which is unavailable to GNU/Linux *users* (as opposed to
>administrators) can't be The Right Way.  So editing a /etc/foobar
>file is out of the question.

Hmmm.  OK, fair point.  In that case, I'd suggest putting the said file
in one's home directory.  loadkeys doesn't (or, at least, didn't) require
superuser privileges.  I still say configuring the keyboard driver is the
right way to go.

>        Stefan

-- 
Alan Mackenzie (Munich, Germany)

Re: Default Emacs keybindings

[Luc Teirlinck]

Alan Mackenzie wrote:

   Hmmm.  OK, fair point.  In that case, I'd suggest putting the said file
   in one's home directory.  loadkeys doesn't (or, at least, didn't) require
   superuser privileges.  I still say configuring the keyboard driver is the
   right way to go.

Is it really a matter of choosing one or the other?  If I want the
remapping for the console, I need to use loadkeys.  That worked
perfectly for me on the console, with one big caveat to anybody else
who wants to try it out, which you already mentioned:

   There is a bug in the keyboard driver of my (shamefully out of date)
   Linux kernel, in which after running this file, the keyboard is left in
   "permanent control" state.  This can be worked around by specifying in
   /etc/keytab.CoLo "Caps_Lock" or "Control" individually for each modifier
   combination, as follows. 

   keycode 29 = Caps_Lock Caps_Lock Caps_Lock Caps_Lock Caps_Lock Caps_Lock Caps_Lock Caps_Lock Caps_Lock Caps_Lock Caps_Lock
   keycode 58 = Control Control Control Control Control Control Control Control Control Control Control

   The number of "Caps_Lock"s necessary can be found from "dumpkeys -i".

Yes indeed, and a permanent control state is no fun.

However, unless I did something wrong, this does not seem to work
under X.  Is there a way to make this work under X?  If not, we need
_both_ loadkeys and xmodmap, as, I believe, Robert Chassell already
remarked too.

Sincerely,

Luc.

Re: Default Emacs keybindings

[Luc Teirlinck]

Eli Zaretskii wrote:

   xmodmap is only for working on X, IIRC it doesn't help if one runs
   Emacs from a console or logs in remotely via a terminal emulator.

I indeed forgot about the console.  xmodmap _seems_ to work perfectly
however, when logging in remotely using emacs -nw from a gnome
terminal, which I am doing right now.

Sincerely,

Luc.

Re: Default Emacs keybindings

[Eli Zaretskii]

> Date: Tue, 4 May 2004 16:35:55 -0500 (CDT)
> From: Luc Teirlinck <teirllm@dms.auburn.edu>
> 
> xmodmap _seems_ to work perfectly however, when logging in remotely
> using emacs -nw from a gnome terminal, which I am doing right now.

It works if the remapping was done on the machine where you run the
terminal emulator (assuming the emulator itself is a windowed
program).  I was talking about logging _into_ a machine where you
remapped the keys.

Re: Default Emacs keybindings

[Luc Teirlinck]

Eli Zaretskii wrote:

   > Date: Tue, 4 May 2004 16:35:55 -0500 (CDT)
   > From: Luc Teirlinck <teirllm@dms.auburn.edu>
   > 
   > xmodmap _seems_ to work perfectly however, when logging in remotely
   > using emacs -nw from a gnome terminal, which I am doing right now.

   It works if the remapping was done on the machine where you run the
   terminal emulator (assuming the emulator itself is a windowed
   program).  I was talking about logging _into_ a machine where you
   remapped the keys.

What I was talking about was: Use xmodmap on your local machine.
Then use ssh to log into a remote machine.  (It does not matter
whether you use or do not use X11 forwarding, ssh -X vs ssh -x for my
version of ssh).  Then you execute emacs -nw on the remote machine.
The xmodmap on the local machine will be in effect.

Sincerely,

Luc.

Re: Default Emacs keybindings

[Thien-Thi Nguyen]

Luc Teirlinck <teirllm@dms.auburn.edu> writes:

   Eli Zaretskii wrote:

      I was talking about logging _into_ a machine where you
      remapped the keys.

   What I was talking about was: Use xmodmap on your local machine.

thus, you are talking past each other.  that's ok, too -- friends
share a parallel view of sorts, according to some Writer.

probably if the simple cases can be solved independently, those
more complex cases that combine these simple cases can also be
solved, if not by side-effect, then through complexity reduction.
trying to solve the composed problems is like painting a tree
starting w/ the leaves -- no doubt a skilled painter can make
the result beautiful, but that's a lot of extra work involved!

thi

Re: Default Emacs keybindings

[Luc Teirlinck]

>From my previous message:

    What I was talking about was: Use xmodmap on your local machine.
    Then use ssh to log into a remote machine.

Where the ssh is executed from an xterm.

Sincerely,

Luc.

Re: Default Emacs keybindings

[Richard Stallman]

    >From M-x man xmodmap:

That works under X, and it would be useful to put that info in Emacs;
however, we also should document how to remap the caps lock key on a
Linux console, for those who use GNU/Linux outside X.  if other
systems' consoles have this feature, we could also document how to
remap them.

Re: Default Emacs keybindings

[Robert J. Chassell]

   What we should do is include prominent documentation telling users how
   to remap their caps-lock key, with specific recipes.  (I have no idea
   where to find this information for GNU/Linux.)

I agree.  Here are my notes on installing sensible bindings in plain
text consoles, virtual consoles, using a shell and in X Windows.
These bindings apply to all applications, not just Emacs.

This is just a beginning.  Someone who knows more than I needs to
write the documentation to be more general and to work well.

First, plain text consoles:

The following is easiest for plain text consoles, but may not always
work:

    install-keymap emacs2

This command packages package all the keymaps needed for the complete
emacs2 keymap (i.e. linux-keys-bare.inc.gz,
linux-with-alt-and-altgr.inc.gz, qwerty-layout.inc.gz, and of course,
emacs2.kmap.gz) and puts them all together as:

    /etc/console/boottime.kmap.gz

and loads that file.

If `install-keymap' fails, the following succeeds, also for plain text
consoles:

    loadkeys /usr/share/keymaps/i386/qwerty/emacs2.kmap.gz


On my system, sensible key bindings are loaded at boottime
by   /etc/rcS.d/S05keymap.sh

That file is a link to  /etc/init.d/keymap.sh 
which contains a command to 

    loadkeys /etc/console/boottime.kmap.gz

(Actually, the command is `loadkeys ${CONFFILE}' where
`CONFFILE=${CONFDIR}/${CONFFILEROOT}.${EXT}.gz' and that ends up being
`/etc/console/boottime.kmap.gz'.)


Second, X Windows:

The `loadkeys' and `install-keymap' commands do not work with X
Windows.

Instead, it is necessary to use `xmodmap'.  (Other commands may also
work, but I do not know them.)

You can put the following commands in the global Xmodmap file which is
used by both xdm and xinit (startx) to change the X keymaps for all
users:

    /etc/X11/Xmodmap

Or you can put the commands in various users' ~/.xinitrc files.  When
the commands go into a user's ~/.xinitrc file, the commands are
executed when the user starts X and apply only to that user.

Please note that these keycodes are specific to my keyboard.  I
suspect that the commands suggested in the man page for `xmodmap' are
better than these, but have not tried them.

Alternatively, whoever writes the documentation should describe a
simple way to discover the keybinds.  I use `xev' and `xkeycaps', but
can never remember what is what.  Please describe a fool proof
technique, so people like me do not need to think or know anything.

    xmodmap -e "clear Lock"
    xmodmap -e "add Control = Caps_Lock"

    xmodmap -e "keycode 22 = BackSpace"
    xmodmap -e "keycode 107 = Delete"

The previous commands are different from the commands suggested in the
man page for xmodmap.  I suspect the man page commands are better, but
do not know enough myself to choose:

#             !
#             ! Swap Caps_Lock and Control_L
#             !
#             remove Lock = Caps_Lock
#             remove Control = Control_L
#             keysym Control_L = Caps_Lock
#             keysym Caps_Lock = Control_L
#             add Lock = Caps_Lock
#             add Control = Control_L

In addition, here are commands to set the right ALT and CTL keys to be
Super and Hyper respectively.  These are useful keys, both in Emacs
and in other X applications.  I think we should tell people how to do
this.

Please note the keycode.  Again, whoever writes the final
documentation should offer a better way.


    # Set right ALT key to be Super_R with mod3
    xmodmap  -e "keycode 0x71 = Super_R"
    xmodmap  -e "keysym Super_R = Super_R" \
             -e "add Mod3 = Super_R"     \
             -e "remove Mod1 = Super_R"
    xmodmap  -e "remove Mod2 = Super_R"


    # Set right CTL key to be a Hyper key with mod4
    xmodmap  -e "keycode 0x6d = Hyper_R"
    xmodmap  -e "keysym Hyper_R = Hyper_R" \
             -e "remove Control = Hyper_R"
    xmodmap  -e "remove Mod2 = Hyper_R" \
             -e "add Mod4 = Hyper_R"


Here are my comments on how to set the right ALT key to be a true ALT,
rather than a Meta key.

    # # Set right ALT key to be an ALT with mod3
    # xmodmap  -e "keycode 0x71 = Alt_R"
    # xmodmap  -e "keysym Alt_R = Alt_R" \
    #          -e "add Mod3 = Alt_R"     \
    #          -e "remove Mod1 = Alt_R"
    # xmodmap  -e "remove Mod2 = Alt_R"

In addition, I found that Shift-Tab works when I do the following:

    xmodmap -e 'keysym Tab = Tab'

Emacs should contain default key bindings and menu bindings to run a
shell command that changes the key bindings both for all the virtual
consoles and, if the user is in X Windows, for that session of X.

The command should appear on the Emacs splash page.  

Also, the documentation should explain what to put in both general and
user specific shell scripts that can be run from a shell.  Moreover,
it should tell how how to invoke one or other shell script
automatically at boot.

-- 
    Robert J. Chassell                         Rattlesnake Enterprises
    As I slowly update it,                     bob@rattlesnake.com
        I rewrite a "What's New" segment for   http://www.rattlesnake.com

Re: Default Emacs keybindings

[Richard Stallman]

You are good at writing clear documentation.  With the information
that was posted, can you write clear documentation for this?

You could explain how to construct the key mapping file
if there isn't already one.

Re: Default Emacs keybindings

[Robert J. Chassell]

   You are good at writing clear documentation.  With the information
   that was posted, can you write clear documentation for this?

No, there is not enough info for me.  I do not understand keybindings.
I do not know how to construct key mapping files that work for people
using various GNU systems.

For example, I do not know how to read the full key information
provided by xev or xkeycaps or showkeys, even though I have read the
man pages numerous times.

I grasp enough so that with trial and error, I was able, a long time
ago, to figure out what to do and write notes.

That is all.  I do not know what to read that is at the right level
for me and which will tell me what I need to learn.

On the one hand, I've seen documentation that presumes I know or
remember much more than I do.  I do not understand what it says.  On
the other hand, I'v seen documentation that presumes I know nothing.
This tells me too little.

Documentation that says too little tends to say things like, "run
`install-keymap emacs2'".  That is fine if that works.  But does not
tell what to do when it fails.

Fortunately, I know that when `install-keymap' fails, I should run
`loadkeys /usr/share/keymaps/i386/qwerty/emacs2.kmap.gz'

Unfortunately, but I do not know what to do when that command fails.

What do I do with that command to get a Euro symbol both in an xterm
and in an instance of Emacs -- a symbol that will be readable on a Web
page as well as in Emacs, or that will be readable in an email message
from me if they use some strange non-Emacs email reader?  

I have a note to myself for inserting a Euro symbol into an Emacs
buffer using "rfc1345" but I have no idea whether that is a good
method or not.  My note also says

    ;; Note that there exists
    ;;     ISO 2022 based 8-bit encoding for Latin-5 (MIME:ISO-8859-9).
    ;; but I do not know how to insert a Euro symbol with it.

Since the Euro symbol is not important to me, that is as far as I have
gone.  Obviously, the Euro symbol is important to many other people.


What should I read to learn about keybindings, including new features
like the Euro symbol?  I don't know.

Worse, as I said, I do not know how to construct key mapping files
that work for people using various GNU systems:  some time ago, I
tested the methods I use on the three different keyboards that I use,
and that is all.  (All three systems use a Linux kernel.)

The goal is to suggest one action or several actions that are likely
to work with all GNU systems.  (I have not the foggiest knowledge
about non-GNU systems, nor much interest.)

--
    Robert J. Chassell                         Rattlesnake Enterprises
    As I slowly update it,                     bob@rattlesnake.com
        I rewrite a "What's New" segment for   http://www.rattlesnake.com

Re: Default Emacs keybindings

[Andreas Schwab]

"Robert J. Chassell" <bob@rattlesnake.com> writes:

> I have a note to myself for inserting a Euro symbol into an Emacs
> buffer using "rfc1345" but I have no idea whether that is a good
> method or not.  My note also says
>
>     ;; Note that there exists
>     ;;     ISO 2022 based 8-bit encoding for Latin-5 (MIME:ISO-8859-9).
>     ;; but I do not know how to insert a Euro symbol with it.

Since Latin-5 doesn't contain a Euro sign this is impossible.

Andreas.

-- 
Andreas Schwab, SuSE Labs, schwab@suse.de
SuSE Linux AG, Maxfeldstraße 5, 90409 Nürnberg, Germany
Key fingerprint = 58CA 54C7 6D53 942B 1756  01D3 44D5 214B 8276 4ED5
"And now for something completely different."

Re: Default Emacs keybindings

[Robert J. Chassell]

   >     ;; Note that there exists
   >     ;;     ISO 2022 based 8-bit encoding for Latin-5 (MIME:ISO-8859-9).
   >     ;; but I do not know how to insert a Euro symbol with it.

   Since Latin-5 doesn't contain a Euro sign this is impossible.

I was told that ISO-8859-9 does contain a Euro sign.  Hmm...  there is
a mistake in the note; it should not refer to Latin-5.

Thanks!  I will fix the note.  

What about ISO-8859-9?

-- 
    Robert J. Chassell                         Rattlesnake Enterprises
    As I slowly update it,                     bob@rattlesnake.com
        I rewrite a "What's New" segment for   http://www.rattlesnake.com

Re: Default Emacs keybindings

[Andreas Schwab]

"Robert J. Chassell" <bob@rattlesnake.com> writes:

>    >     ;; Note that there exists
>    >     ;;     ISO 2022 based 8-bit encoding for Latin-5 (MIME:ISO-8859-9).
>    >     ;; but I do not know how to insert a Euro symbol with it.
>
>    Since Latin-5 doesn't contain a Euro sign this is impossible.
>
> I was told that ISO-8859-9 does contain a Euro sign.

The only latin character sets that contain a Euro sign are Latin-9
(ISO-8869-15) and Latin-10 (ISO-8859-16).

Andreas.

-- 
Andreas Schwab, SuSE Labs, schwab@suse.de
SuSE Linux AG, Maxfeldstraße 5, 90409 Nürnberg, Germany
Key fingerprint = 58CA 54C7 6D53 942B 1756  01D3 44D5 214B 8276 4ED5
"And now for something completely different."

Re: Default Emacs keybindings

[Richard Stallman]

    No, there is not enough info for me.  I do not understand keybindings.
    I do not know how to construct key mapping files that work for people
    using various GNU systems.

    For example, I do not know how to read the full key information
    provided by xev or xkeycaps or showkeys, even though I have read the
    man pages numerous times.

Can anyone else here explain that to you, so you can write good
documentation for it?

Re: Default Emacs keybindings

[Robert J. Chassell]

       No, there is not enough info for me.  I do not understand keybindings.
       I do not know how to construct key mapping files that work for people
       using various GNU systems.

       For example, I do not know how to read the full key information
       provided by xev or xkeycaps or showkeys, even though I have read the
       man pages numerous times.

   Can anyone else here explain that to you, so you can write good
   documentation for it?

If someone wants to try, that would be nice.  Otherwise, please
suggest documents for me to read.  Best would be documents in Texinfo,
then plain text, then HTML, then GhostScript.  Please, none in PDF.

-- 
    Robert J. Chassell                         Rattlesnake Enterprises
    As I slowly update it,                     bob@rattlesnake.com
        I rewrite a "What's New" segment for   http://www.rattlesnake.com

Re: Default Emacs keybindings

[Robert J. Chassell]

   What we should do is include prominent documentation telling users how
   to remap their caps-lock key, with specific recipes.  (I have no idea
   where to find this information for GNU/Linux.)

[I just sent a set of notes for a QWERTY keyboard.]

Perhaps people who use non-QWERTY keyboards can write notes on what to
do with them -- I don't know how specific my suggestions are to a
layout for a QWERTY layout or to the specific model of keyboard that I
mostly use.

-- 
    Robert J. Chassell                         Rattlesnake Enterprises
    As I slowly update it,                     bob@rattlesnake.com
        I rewrite a "What's New" segment for   http://www.rattlesnake.com

Re: Default Emacs keybindings

[Richard Stallman]

    Now I understand -- to use the emacs bindings you have to buy a
    special keyboard.  How convenient :-|

The happy hacking keyboard is worth the price.  It has keys that are
easy on the fingers.  But you don't need to get a special keyboard to
have a convenient control key.  Remapping does the job.

Re: Default Emacs keybindings

[Jan Nieuwenhuizen]

Lars Brinkhoff writes:

>> > You can get the Happy Hacking keyboard, which has control in the
>> > right place.
>> Hey, yeah, I second that -- I've got two HH keyboards!
> I third that -- I have three.

I see a pattern here.  It looks like a lot of people that like Emacs
bindings (like me) do not use keyboards with the control key at the
wrong place.  Using Emacs bindings on keyboards with pc-style control
key layout make my poor pinky fingers die.

FWIW, on common flat keyboards I use my own dvorak-caps layout, but
mostly I use a maltron keyboard, which has all modifiers convieniently
and symmetrically placed, control and alt/meta on both thumbs.

-- 
Jan Nieuwenhuizen <janneke@gnu.org> | GNU LilyPond - The music typesetter
http://www.xs4all.nl/~jantien       | http://www.lilypond.org