From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Eli Zaretskii Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: [External] : Re: [PATCH] New tab-bar-detach-tab command Date: Thu, 07 Oct 2021 21:28:43 +0300 Message-ID: <83ily8zo2s.fsf@gnu.org> References: <87h7e4ikkz.fsf@alphapapa.net> <87pmsrrh7y.fsf@mail.linkov.net> <875yujizgi.fsf@alphapapa.net> <87o88bb21y.fsf@mail.linkov.net> <871r57i2cz.fsf@alphapapa.net> <87k0iu6n6x.fsf@mail.linkov.net> <87lf388zo5.fsf@mail.linkov.net> <87r1d0woq1.fsf@alphapapa.net> <878rz8aruo.fsf@mail.linkov.net> <875yub5sry.fsf@mail.linkov.net> <87v92ase7i.fsf_-_@mail.linkov.net> <87czohnvux.fsf@mail.linkov.net> <83k0ip1dr6.fsf@gnu.org> <8735pcu3ot.fsf@mail.linkov.net> Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="8940"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" Cc: adam@alphapapa.net, drew.adams@oracle.com, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Juri Linkov Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Thu Oct 07 20:30:28 2021 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([209.51.188.17]) by ciao.gmane.io with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1mYYA0-0002C3-UJ for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Thu, 07 Oct 2021 20:30:28 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:45790 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1mYY9z-0007XC-B4 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Thu, 07 Oct 2021 14:30:27 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:45328) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1mYY8Q-0006qO-14 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 07 Oct 2021 14:28:50 -0400 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]:45296) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1mYY8P-0002pw-Hw; Thu, 07 Oct 2021 14:28:49 -0400 Original-Received: from 84.94.185.95.cable.012.net.il ([84.94.185.95]:1209 helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1mYY8N-0004S6-FZ; Thu, 07 Oct 2021 14:28:48 -0400 In-Reply-To: <8735pcu3ot.fsf@mail.linkov.net> (message from Juri Linkov on Thu, 07 Oct 2021 20:58:05 +0300) X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23 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-mx.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: "Emacs-devel" Xref: news.gmane.io gmane.emacs.devel:276512 Archived-At: > From: Juri Linkov > Cc: drew.adams@oracle.com, adam@alphapapa.net, emacs-devel@gnu.org > Date: Thu, 07 Oct 2021 20:58:05 +0300 > > > Aren't we again giving a key binding to a command without any idea how > > popular that command will be? "Stealing" the prefix arg from "C-x 5 2" > > is even worse, IMO: it's a very old command which we will never > > remove, and we might one day introduce some optional behavior for it, > > and use C-u for that. Why prevent that today on account of a command > > whose importance is largely unknown (and by default should be > > considered of low importance, since otherwise how did we manage > > without it until now?). > > > > I say let's remove the "C-x 5 c" binding as long as it isn't too late, > > and reconsider the command's binding at a later date, when we know > > more about its importance. > > A command without a keybinding is like a programmer without a computer. So all the commands we have in Emacs that don't have a binding are in your opinion useless? We will never have enough reasonably short key sequences to give a binding to every command, so expressing such extreme views is not constructive.