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: Suggested experimental test Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2021 16:31:01 +0200 Message-ID: <83wnty6ixm.fsf@gnu.org> References: <831ba60af0cbfdd95686@heytings.org> <87mtuxj8ue.fsf@gnus.org> <9088e12cb3de3d30abf1@heytings.org> <8735wnjsum.fsf@gnus.org> <87tup3hwat.fsf_-_@gnus.org> <834kh39fvj.fsf@gnu.org> <271290d7aaec41df5fde@heytings.org> <83k0py8f5k.fsf@gnu.org> <22aaf0fadd2892c6dc2e@heytings.org> Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="1105"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Gregory Heytings Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Tue Mar 23 15:33:37 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 1lOi6D-0000Az-1x for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Tue, 23 Mar 2021 15:33:37 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:53130 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lOi6C-0006oB-2k for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Tue, 23 Mar 2021 10:33:36 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:47376) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lOi3d-0003xv-JE for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 23 Mar 2021 10:30:57 -0400 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]:56505) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lOi3d-0000wq-14; Tue, 23 Mar 2021 10:30:57 -0400 Original-Received: from 84.94.185.95.cable.012.net.il ([84.94.185.95]:4856 helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1lOi3b-0000QN-S1; Tue, 23 Mar 2021 10:30:56 -0400 In-Reply-To: <22aaf0fadd2892c6dc2e@heytings.org> (message from Gregory Heytings on Tue, 23 Mar 2021 14:15:12 +0000) 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:266878 Archived-At: > Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2021 14:15:12 +0000 > From: Gregory Heytings > cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org > > > Opening an empty line is a very useful editing primitive, not unlike > > going to the next line with RET. > > I'd bet it is useful, as it is, only for 0.5% of Emacs users, perhaps even > less. No other editor I know has that feature. There's lot of good and useful stuff in Emacs that is not known to "the crowd". The right way of dealing with that is popularize it, not delete it or make it harder or less convenient to use. IMO, at least, FWIW. > And I'd bet that 90% of those 0.5% would be happier with a better > open-line primitive, for example one which can be called when point > is in the middle of a line, like "o" and "O" in vi. You are welcome to add such a command, or find a clever way of tweaking C-o to do that. Then let's meet in, like, 20 years and see how many percents of Emacs users like it or even know about it. > The discussion showed that those who use it use it at BOL, > and that it wasn't used alone, but as part of a sequence, for example C-a > C-o or C-o C-n. Nobody even mentioned the fact that open-line uses the > fill-prefix and the left-margin. The discussion revealed more than that, but if you believe only 0.5% find this command useful, how is that relevant? If anything, it reinforces my point above. > And even assuming that it is useful as it is, that doesn't answer the main > question: why should a control character key be reserved forever for that > very specific purpose, and for that very specific purpose only? I did try to answer that. > > Trying to change that will always cause staunch resistance, especially > > when the purpose for which this is done is vague and not perceived as > > important enough by enough people. > > > > I could have clarified the purpose indeed, but the risk would have been to > start two parallel discussions. Oh, I think I understand the reason. It wasn't my mood that I was describing, and you already know what I think about disputes about the default key bindings.