From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: "Drew Adams" Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: RE: Why all the Alt bindings by default? Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2011 09:06:09 -0700 Message-ID: <4D3FCD6DCE824CA2913FF5C9E255FEC2@us.oracle.com> References: <6F1ADCC148584A4A80CF9FF727BE1915@us.oracle.com><67D259D03C5D4CEEB3735689FE31215A@us.oracle.com><83r51zaxhg.fsf@gnu.org><417B6669B6284967BFCAA6144A02456D@us.oracle.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1319731597 23182 80.91.229.12 (27 Oct 2011 16:06:37 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2011 16:06:37 +0000 (UTC) Cc: 'Eli Zaretskii' , 'Tim Cross' , emacs-devel@gnu.org To: "'Andreas Schwab'" Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Thu Oct 27 18:06:32 2011 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([140.186.70.17]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1RJSTQ-0000J4-KJ for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 27 Oct 2011 18:06:32 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:43522 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RJSTQ-0005PT-0g for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 27 Oct 2011 12:06:32 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.92]:41046) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RJSTJ-0005Oi-I5 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 27 Oct 2011 12:06:30 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RJSTH-0000mc-AJ for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 27 Oct 2011 12:06:25 -0400 Original-Received: from rcsinet15.oracle.com ([148.87.113.117]:37692) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RJSTD-0000lJ-J9; Thu, 27 Oct 2011 12:06:19 -0400 Original-Received: from acsinet22.oracle.com (acsinet22.oracle.com [141.146.126.238]) by rcsinet15.oracle.com (Switch-3.4.4/Switch-3.4.4) with ESMTP id p9RG6Gri025979 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Thu, 27 Oct 2011 16:06:16 GMT Original-Received: from acsmt357.oracle.com (acsmt357.oracle.com [141.146.40.157]) by acsinet22.oracle.com (8.14.4+Sun/8.14.4) with ESMTP id p9RG6FhA001125 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Thu, 27 Oct 2011 16:06:15 GMT Original-Received: from abhmt119.oracle.com (abhmt119.oracle.com [141.146.116.71]) by acsmt357.oracle.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id p9RG69Uv018217; Thu, 27 Oct 2011 11:06:09 -0500 Original-Received: from dradamslap1 (/130.35.178.194) by default (Oracle Beehive Gateway v4.0) with ESMTP ; Thu, 27 Oct 2011 09:06:09 -0700 X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11 In-Reply-To: Thread-Index: AcyUwEIRh94v1dOBTDe5XxByGMeBtAAAC2rg X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.6109 X-Source-IP: acsinet22.oracle.com [141.146.126.238] X-Auth-Type: Internal IP X-CT-RefId: str=0001.0A090203.4EA98179.017F:SCFMA922111,ss=1,re=-4.000,fgs=0 X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 1) X-Received-From: 148.87.113.117 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:145662 Archived-At: > The bindings are listed in order of precedence. Interesting. I wasn't aware of that. There is nothing in the buffer that tells users that (bug #1), nothing in the doc string of `describe-bindings' about it either (bug #2), nothing in (emacs) `Help Summary' or (emacs) `Misc Help' either (bug #3, bug #4), and nothing in (elisp) `Scanning Keymaps' either (bug #6). So is this by design or accident? It's apparently documented _nowhere_. Even if by design, perhaps the design needs to be revisited. We did something similar (at my request) a few years back for `C-h m', when we moved the minor-mode stuff after the major-mode description. Prior to that, like key translation listings here, the minor-mode stuff was _in the way_. IF we decide to keep showing key translations in `C-h b', then we should get them out of the way, one way or another. It would be fine if, in the new intro text that you will please add to explain that bindings are listed in order of precedence, you also say that key translations (which are not bindings) are listed after all of the bindings, even though they take precedence. > > Currently, they are at the _start_ of the buffer, in the way. > > Which is the correct place. "Correct"? It's probably correct that that the correct place is _nowhere_ in a listing of key bindings (Stefan's suggestion). If they do belong there then they certainly don't belong at the beginning of the buffer. Another alternative would be to show them only on demand, e.g. using a particular prefix arg. The point is that they should not be front-and-center, in the way of seeing the key bindings.