From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Dmitry Gutov Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Unuseful keybindings Date: Sun, 23 Dec 2012 18:41:40 +0400 Message-ID: <50D71824.90601@yandex.ru> References: <87sj73qzvl.fsf@gmail.com> <87623zquvw.fsf@gmail.com><87ip7zdud3.fsf@gmail.com> <87ehiiu5x7.fsf@gnu.org><876A7D1112084247AE53F7EE42B4587C@us.oracle.com><80ehih3hlj.fsf@somewhere.org> <87pq21iwrw.fsf@yandex.ru> <87AE81CEB91846DB94BC5F3B40C788DE@us.oracle.com> <50D64318.5030501@yandex.ru> <0FBA2D9ECA214D82B5C65E5A09E7EE19@us.oracle.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1356273881 26946 80.91.229.3 (23 Dec 2012 14:44:41 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 23 Dec 2012 14:44:41 +0000 (UTC) Cc: public-emacs-devel-mXXj517/zsQ@plane.gmane.org, 'Sebastien Vauban' , emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Drew Adams Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sun Dec 23 15:44:56 2012 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1TmmnP-0002fr-6m for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sun, 23 Dec 2012 15:44:55 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:53708 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1TmmnB-0005f2-5C for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sun, 23 Dec 2012 09:44:41 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:58153) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Tmmn1-0005eo-3y for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 23 Dec 2012 09:44:40 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Tmmmt-0005Qh-6W for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 23 Dec 2012 09:44:30 -0500 Original-Received: from mail-la0-f51.google.com ([209.85.215.51]:46349) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1TmmkJ-0005CX-Pq for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 23 Dec 2012 09:41:44 -0500 Original-Received: by mail-la0-f51.google.com with SMTP id e4so7578207lag.38 for ; Sun, 23 Dec 2012 06:41:42 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=x-received:sender:message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to :cc:subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=/HDHwxcNtZsHtS+tXlktyc/zmQ596znKUcrfba8wvEw=; b=OwCoo0d53tvcfNar+p4IgZs+PriWE7eMsmIAoiM9eCdrpWUUG/KvTIkGKqUQA5Fkb/ JrzlcokWMO94P3k4M4ox3FF3vwX/wd00prLZ7BnsCOQMLo/mmICfos5G8FfuDAoWnAVu RDrTbTy5JdgwuwX779SuLZd3zqCkMUrwP950k5zD+xSaZEcQb2oTGDFgnXzR3EL3fnx1 0iMWgjoxEyDieAfjHxutuvPcnPFNiOdpIBgJezcIUWxmtTdSYsu55Pwp/gNc+6Of6CRs 4e4BHU9oJlzIIqgNHtFYnfnvpCGPBYYMMyigbrQG7LxvvZOr8mZICdcOmsE6l9Ra9R6o oyeg== X-Received: by 10.112.40.3 with SMTP id t3mr7759007lbk.48.1356273702582; Sun, 23 Dec 2012 06:41:42 -0800 (PST) Original-Received: from [127.0.0.1] ([178.252.98.87]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id lr20sm6754551lab.17.2012.12.23.06.41.40 (version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Sun, 23 Dec 2012 06:41:41 -0800 (PST) User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:17.0) Gecko/17.0 Thunderbird/17.0 In-Reply-To: <0FBA2D9ECA214D82B5C65E5A09E7EE19@us.oracle.com> X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 3.x [fuzzy] X-Received-From: 209.85.215.51 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:155808 Archived-At: On 23.12.2012 4:45, Drew Adams wrote: >> Do the existing bindings for and take the >> "properties" you mention seriously? > > No, which is why I brought up the _general_ topic - and I explicitly mentioned > each of those keys too. I would like to see us stop making such silly default > bindings (and even free up some of them). Emacs Dev did not used to do that > kind of thing. > > We never should have bound those function keys, IMHO, with (probably) the > exception of `f1', which has more in the way of supporting argument. Well, that's my point. None of the current f-key bindings take into account repeatability, so you asking not to bind f11 for that reason doesn't sound very convincing, and goes against consistency. I'd certainly prefer if different f-keys were bound or not bound on the same principle. The possible reason why those keys are so nice and still mostly have no bindings is they are far from the home row, so the expectation is they can only be used for one-off commands, not in a sequence in the middle of other commands during an editing session. > `f10' started the do-it-without-discussion trend, IIRC. I opposed binding `f3' > & `f4' at the time. I do not recall any discussion about `f10', but I might > have missed it. > > There is absolutely no reason for Emacs to bind `f3' and `f4' by default. Emacs > has had keyboard macros practically from Day One. Zillions of Emacs users > created zillions of keyboard macros, without Emacs Dev ever feeling that we > should waste binding simple, repeatable keys to their creation and execution. These keys are featured on the Emacs tour page, so there's no getting rid of them now, I suppose. > Or consider `f5', which often refreshes/revert the current context, outside > Emacs. I myself bind `f5' to a command that does (revert-buffer t t). And I've > suggested to others that they might want to do the same. But I don't propose > that Emacs adopt that convention by default, even though I use it all the time. > And when I suggest it to others, I add this caveat, just to draw their attention > to the fact that it wastes a repeatable key: > > http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/help-gnu-emacs/2012-10/msg00159.html I don't think this command is generally useful enough. The only kind of file that might need frequent refreshing I can imagine is a log file, and if you're viewing one of those in Emacs, you'd also have to scroll to the bottom each time. As for infrequent refreshing (including the situation when you need to revert many files at once), global-auto-revert-mode is much better in my experience, and it doesn't require a special action from the user.