* Re: Key-binding clash between gnus and calc [not found] <20051121194141.7FA5B1207F1@localhost.localdomain> @ 2005-11-22 10:57 ` Juri Linkov 2005-11-22 14:15 ` Chong Yidong 0 siblings, 1 reply; 89+ messages in thread From: Juri Linkov @ 2005-11-22 10:57 UTC (permalink / raw) Cc: wilde, rms, emacs-devel >>> How about something like `C-x &'? >> >> Then why not `C-x #'? > > Why not `C-x c'? I think other packages might pretend to this keybinding (e.g. calendar). -- Juri Linkov http://www.jurta.org/emacs/ ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 89+ messages in thread
* Re: Key-binding clash between gnus and calc 2005-11-22 10:57 ` Key-binding clash between gnus and calc Juri Linkov @ 2005-11-22 14:15 ` Chong Yidong 2005-11-22 17:30 ` Henrik Enberg 2005-11-22 17:54 ` Jay Belanger 0 siblings, 2 replies; 89+ messages in thread From: Chong Yidong @ 2005-11-22 14:15 UTC (permalink / raw) Cc: wilde, rms, emacs-devel >> Why not `C-x c'? > > I think other packages might pretend to this keybinding (e.g. calendar). I can't find mention of that keybinding anywhere. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 89+ messages in thread
* Re: Key-binding clash between gnus and calc 2005-11-22 14:15 ` Chong Yidong @ 2005-11-22 17:30 ` Henrik Enberg 2005-11-22 17:54 ` Jay Belanger 1 sibling, 0 replies; 89+ messages in thread From: Henrik Enberg @ 2005-11-22 17:30 UTC (permalink / raw) Cc: juri, wilde, rms, emacs-devel > From: Chong Yidong <cyd@stupidchicken.com> > Date: Tue, 22 Nov 2005 09:15:38 -0500 > > >> Why not `C-x c'? > > > > I think other packages might pretend to this keybinding (e.g. calendar). > > I can't find mention of that keybinding anywhere. Way to close to C-x C-c in my opinion. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 89+ messages in thread
* Re: Key-binding clash between gnus and calc 2005-11-22 14:15 ` Chong Yidong 2005-11-22 17:30 ` Henrik Enberg @ 2005-11-22 17:54 ` Jay Belanger 1 sibling, 0 replies; 89+ messages in thread From: Jay Belanger @ 2005-11-22 17:54 UTC (permalink / raw) Cc: belanger Chong Yidong <cyd@stupidchicken.com> writes: >>> Why not `C-x c'? >> >> I think other packages might pretend to this keybinding (e.g. calendar). > > I can't find mention of that keybinding anywhere. In pcvs-defs.el, it's defined as a prefix key for cvs-minor-mode. Jay ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 89+ messages in thread
* Key-binding clash between gnus and calc @ 2005-11-15 16:45 Sascha Wilde 2005-11-15 17:02 ` David Kastrup ` (2 more replies) 0 siblings, 3 replies; 89+ messages in thread From: Sascha Wilde @ 2005-11-15 16:45 UTC (permalink / raw) `M-#' is normally bound to `calc-dispatch', but in gnus it's bound to `gnus-topic-unmark-topic' in groups buffer, to `gnus-summary-unmark-as-processable' in summary and article buffer. I don't know which of them has the "older rights" to use this binding, but anyway, to a regular user of both, gnus and calc (as me for instance) the current state is quite inconvenient. cheers sascha -- Sascha Wilde : "Lies, was ich meine, nicht, was ich schreibe." : (Urs Traenkner in de.alt.admin) ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 89+ messages in thread
* Re: Key-binding clash between gnus and calc 2005-11-15 16:45 Sascha Wilde @ 2005-11-15 17:02 ` David Kastrup 2005-11-15 18:47 ` Sascha Wilde 2005-11-15 17:16 ` Jay Belanger 2005-11-17 7:55 ` Juri Linkov 2 siblings, 1 reply; 89+ messages in thread From: David Kastrup @ 2005-11-15 17:02 UTC (permalink / raw) Cc: emacs-devel Sascha Wilde <wilde@sha-bang.de> writes: > `M-#' is normally bound to `calc-dispatch', but in gnus it's bound to > `gnus-topic-unmark-topic' in groups buffer, to > `gnus-summary-unmark-as-processable' in summary and article buffer. > > I don't know which of them has the "older rights" to use this binding, > but anyway, to a regular user of both, gnus and calc (as me for > instance) the current state is quite inconvenient. Well, start a reply before you start calculating. It is not the best workaround for the situation, but better than nothing. -- David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 89+ messages in thread
* Re: Key-binding clash between gnus and calc 2005-11-15 17:02 ` David Kastrup @ 2005-11-15 18:47 ` Sascha Wilde 2005-11-15 19:08 ` Miles Bader 2005-11-16 10:48 ` Richard M. Stallman 0 siblings, 2 replies; 89+ messages in thread From: Sascha Wilde @ 2005-11-15 18:47 UTC (permalink / raw) Cc: emacs-devel David Kastrup <dak@gnu.org> wrote: > Sascha Wilde <wilde@sha-bang.de> writes: > >> `M-#' is normally bound to `calc-dispatch', but in gnus it's bound to >> `gnus-topic-unmark-topic' in groups buffer, to >> `gnus-summary-unmark-as-processable' in summary and article buffer. [...] > Well, start a reply before you start calculating. It is not the best > workaround for the situation, but better than nothing. Please tell me, that you are joking. This is not about finding an "workaround", I know about at least halve a dozen ways of getting calc from within gnus my self. This is about a inconsistency in emacs which should be fixed. calc is part of GNU emacs and it uses and documents M-# as a global binding, while gnus -- part of gnu emacs, too -- binds it locally. Of cause I can use a custom binding for calc as Jay suggested (and in fact, it's what I'm doing for now), but I think the TRTTD would be to change either binding. Global default bindings in emacs should be global. cheers sascha -- Sascha Wilde : "Ist es nicht schon schlimm genug, dass ICH hier rumtrolle?" : (Henning Leise in d.o.c.) ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 89+ messages in thread
* Re: Key-binding clash between gnus and calc 2005-11-15 18:47 ` Sascha Wilde @ 2005-11-15 19:08 ` Miles Bader 2005-11-15 19:33 ` Jay Belanger 2005-11-16 10:48 ` Richard M. Stallman 1 sibling, 1 reply; 89+ messages in thread From: Miles Bader @ 2005-11-15 19:08 UTC (permalink / raw) Cc: emacs-devel 2005/11/16, Sascha Wilde <wilde@sha-bang.de>: > This is about a inconsistency in emacs which should be fixed. calc is > part of GNU emacs and it uses and documents M-# as a global binding, > while gnus -- part of gnu emacs, too -- binds it locally. Of cause I > can use a custom binding for calc as Jay suggested (and in fact, it's > what I'm doing for now), but I think the TRTTD would be to change > either binding. Global default bindings in emacs should be global. Both bindings are really old, and are quite commonly used; changing either one may cause more harm (read: piss off more people) than good. It's hardly a tragedy to have to use "M-x calc" when in a gnus summary buffer. However, I think if one _must_ be changed, it should be calc, becuase calc until now has always been an extra add-on to Emacs, and for that reason probably used by many fewer people than gnus (which has been a part of emacs for a long time). Morever, if I recall correctly, historically the M-# binding for calc has been more of a "suggestion" than anything else (I seem to remember that the calc installation instructions told the user to bind it himself). [Disclaimer: I always use M-x calc anyway, I don't care much about M-# for calc...] -miles -- Do not taunt Happy Fun Ball. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 89+ messages in thread
* Re: Key-binding clash between gnus and calc 2005-11-15 19:08 ` Miles Bader @ 2005-11-15 19:33 ` Jay Belanger 0 siblings, 0 replies; 89+ messages in thread From: Jay Belanger @ 2005-11-15 19:33 UTC (permalink / raw) Cc: belanger Miles Bader <snogglethorpe@gmail.com> writes: > 2005/11/16, Sascha Wilde <wilde@sha-bang.de>: >> This is about a inconsistency in emacs which should be fixed. calc is >> part of GNU emacs and it uses and documents M-# as a global binding, >> while gnus -- part of gnu emacs, too -- binds it locally. Of cause I >> can use a custom binding for calc as Jay suggested (and in fact, it's >> what I'm doing for now), but I think the TRTTD would be to change >> either binding. Global default bindings in emacs should be global. > > Both bindings are really old, and are quite commonly used; changing > either one may cause more harm (read: piss off more people) than good. > It's hardly a tragedy to have to use "M-x calc" when in a gnus > summary buffer. No; but it is inconvenient if you have to take into account the current mode before knowing which method to use. This can be taken care of by using M-x calc-dispatch all the time, I suppose, but that's not as nice as using M-#, especially when you might be doing a lot of different things with Calc. > However, I think if one _must_ be changed, it should be calc, becuase > calc until now has always been an extra add-on to Emacs, and for that > reason probably used by many fewer people than gnus (which has been a > part of emacs for a long time). Yes. Gnus definitely has precedence for M-#. Are there any conventions for global keybindings? The key bindings conventions section of the elisp manual don't mention any, and doesn't even discuss M-... keys. > Morever, if I recall correctly, historically the M-# binding for > calc has been more of a "suggestion" than anything else (I seem to > remember that the calc installation instructions told the user to > bind it himself). In the 2.02 manual, the installation procedure sets the keybinding. Jay ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 89+ messages in thread
* Re: Key-binding clash between gnus and calc 2005-11-15 18:47 ` Sascha Wilde 2005-11-15 19:08 ` Miles Bader @ 2005-11-16 10:48 ` Richard M. Stallman 2005-11-16 16:21 ` Jay Belanger 2005-11-20 23:47 ` Ryan Yeske 1 sibling, 2 replies; 89+ messages in thread From: Richard M. Stallman @ 2005-11-16 10:48 UTC (permalink / raw) Cc: emacs-devel This is about a inconsistency in emacs which should be fixed. calc is part of GNU emacs and it uses and documents M-# as a global binding, while gnus -- part of gnu emacs, too -- binds it locally. I don't think I ever approved allocating M-# globally to this purpose. However, I think if one _must_ be changed, it should be calc, becuase calc until now has always been an extra add-on to Emacs, and for that reason probably used by many fewer people than gnus (which has been a part of emacs for a long time). That is probably what happened: when I decided to include Calc in Emacs, I didn't know that Calc had a global binding in it. Jay asked: Are there any conventions for global keybindings? Yes--you should always ask me. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 89+ messages in thread
* Re: Key-binding clash between gnus and calc 2005-11-16 10:48 ` Richard M. Stallman @ 2005-11-16 16:21 ` Jay Belanger 2005-11-17 14:07 ` Richard M. Stallman 2005-11-20 23:47 ` Ryan Yeske 1 sibling, 1 reply; 89+ messages in thread From: Jay Belanger @ 2005-11-16 16:21 UTC (permalink / raw) Cc: belanger, emacs-devel "Richard M. Stallman" <rms@gnu.org> writes: ... > Jay asked: > > Are there any conventions for global keybindings? > > Yes--you should always ask me. Okay; I'll follow that convention, then. Calc shouldn't use M-# as a global binding for calc-dispatch, and so that binding should be removed. Is there something that Calc can bind globally to calc-dispatch? Jay ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 89+ messages in thread
* Re: Key-binding clash between gnus and calc 2005-11-16 16:21 ` Jay Belanger @ 2005-11-17 14:07 ` Richard M. Stallman 2005-11-17 18:32 ` Robert J. Chassell 0 siblings, 1 reply; 89+ messages in thread From: Richard M. Stallman @ 2005-11-17 14:07 UTC (permalink / raw) Cc: belanger, emacs-devel Is there something that Calc can bind globally to calc-dispatch? I cannot think of something off hand, but that proves little. My memory doesn't work well for this kind of task. I can't call to mind what bindings might be available. All I can do is invite you to look for something and suggest it. If it is more than one key long, it might be ok. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 89+ messages in thread
* Re: Key-binding clash between gnus and calc 2005-11-17 14:07 ` Richard M. Stallman @ 2005-11-17 18:32 ` Robert J. Chassell 2005-11-17 21:40 ` Jay Belanger 0 siblings, 1 reply; 89+ messages in thread From: Robert J. Chassell @ 2005-11-17 18:32 UTC (permalink / raw) Is there something that Calc can bind globally to calc-dispatch? M-+ is currently undefined. You could press M-+ twice (i.e., M-+ M-+) to start calc, the way you do now with M-# or press M-+ and a letter for a specific start or for moving data into and out of calc. I like and am accustomed to M-#, which I have used for a decade and a half, but I can see the problem. Many people now use Gnus not only to read news, but also for email. Incidentally, as far as I know, Emacs Calc mode came to use the M-# binding before GNUS. However, because calc was so big, calc was kept separate from the standard Emacs distribution for a long time. Now, few think that three megabytes additional is `too much'. -- Robert J. Chassell bob@rattlesnake.com GnuPG Key ID: 004B4AC8 http://www.rattlesnake.com http://www.teak.cc ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 89+ messages in thread
* Re: Key-binding clash between gnus and calc 2005-11-17 18:32 ` Robert J. Chassell @ 2005-11-17 21:40 ` Jay Belanger 2005-11-17 21:58 ` David Kastrup 2005-11-19 18:12 ` Robert J. Chassell 0 siblings, 2 replies; 89+ messages in thread From: Jay Belanger @ 2005-11-17 21:40 UTC (permalink / raw) Cc: belanger "Robert J. Chassell" <bob@rattlesnake.com> writes: > Is there something that Calc can bind globally to calc-dispatch? > > M-+ is currently undefined. Undefined anywhere? M-# is undefined (apart from Calc) in most major modes; could there be a mode lurking about that uses M-+? The keybindings conventions part of the manual doesn't say anything about the M-symbol keys; are they fair game for major modes? Gnus uses them a lot, but I haven't seen them used much in other modes. > You could press M-+ twice (i.e., M-+ M-+) > to start calc, the way you do now with M-# or press M-+ and a letter > for a specific start or for moving data into and out of calc. This doesn't meet the "more than one key long" condition, but if it would be acceptable, it would be an excellent solution. Calc has various ways of interacting with buffers in different modes, and so I think it should have a simple entry point with a simple mnemonic. M-+ fits the bill nicely. So, the question is, is M-+ acceptable? > Incidentally, as far as I know, Emacs Calc mode came to use the M-# > binding before GNUS. However, because calc was so big, calc was > kept separate from the standard Emacs distribution for a long time. > Now, few think that three megabytes additional is `too much'. I suspect that you can find running shoes with three megabytes of memory. Jay ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 89+ messages in thread
* Re: Key-binding clash between gnus and calc 2005-11-17 21:40 ` Jay Belanger @ 2005-11-17 21:58 ` David Kastrup 2005-11-19 18:12 ` Robert J. Chassell 1 sibling, 0 replies; 89+ messages in thread From: David Kastrup @ 2005-11-17 21:58 UTC (permalink / raw) Cc: emacs-devel Jay Belanger <belanger@truman.edu> writes: > I suspect that you can find running shoes with three megabytes of > memory. How deprecatory. Those "running shoes" would likely in return claim finding a computer with three ounces of muscle attached in your apartment. -- David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 89+ messages in thread
* Re: Key-binding clash between gnus and calc 2005-11-17 21:40 ` Jay Belanger 2005-11-17 21:58 ` David Kastrup @ 2005-11-19 18:12 ` Robert J. Chassell 2005-11-20 13:29 ` Richard M. Stallman 1 sibling, 1 reply; 89+ messages in thread From: Robert J. Chassell @ 2005-11-19 18:12 UTC (permalink / raw) ... M-# is undefined (apart from Calc) in most major modes; could there be a mode lurking about that uses M-+? Good point. I do not know. This doesn't meet the "more than one key long" condition, ... M-# is a prefix; any replacement for a full keystroke is "more than one key long". However, the prefix itself should not be "more than one key long". With Calc, except for starting the same interface you previously used, for which you currently type `M-# M-#', in which the second binding is non-prefix, every non-prefix key is a letter and, as far as I can see, can remain as is. -- Robert J. Chassell bob@rattlesnake.com GnuPG Key ID: 004B4AC8 http://www.rattlesnake.com http://www.teak.cc ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 89+ messages in thread
* Re: Key-binding clash between gnus and calc 2005-11-19 18:12 ` Robert J. Chassell @ 2005-11-20 13:29 ` Richard M. Stallman 2005-11-20 18:14 ` Jay Belanger 0 siblings, 1 reply; 89+ messages in thread From: Richard M. Stallman @ 2005-11-20 13:29 UTC (permalink / raw) Cc: belanger, emacs-devel M-# is a prefix; any replacement for a full keystroke is "more than one key long". However, the prefix itself should not be "more than one key long". I think you've misunderstood what I said. I said that the replacement for M-# itself probably needs to be more than one key long (if it is to be considered available). ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 89+ messages in thread
* Re: Key-binding clash between gnus and calc 2005-11-20 13:29 ` Richard M. Stallman @ 2005-11-20 18:14 ` Jay Belanger 2005-11-20 22:52 ` Stefan Monnier 2005-11-21 8:10 ` Richard M. Stallman 0 siblings, 2 replies; 89+ messages in thread From: Jay Belanger @ 2005-11-20 18:14 UTC (permalink / raw) Cc: belanger "Richard M. Stallman" <rms@gnu.org> writes: > M-# is a prefix; any replacement for a full keystroke is "more than > one key long". However, the prefix itself should not be "more than > one key long". > > I think you've misunderstood what I said. I said that the replacement > for M-# itself probably needs to be more than one key long (if it is > to be considered available). "Probably"? So M-+ isn't ruled out, then. Sascha suggested `C-x &'; similarly there are `C-x *' or `C-x \'. Are any of these acceptable? But the replacement for M-# will effectively be a prefix and will, by some users of Calc, be used repeatedly; since `M-+' is short and a minimal change from M-#, I'm hoping that `M-+' gets the green light. Jay ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 89+ messages in thread
* Re: Key-binding clash between gnus and calc 2005-11-20 18:14 ` Jay Belanger @ 2005-11-20 22:52 ` Stefan Monnier 2005-11-21 1:50 ` Jay Belanger 2005-11-21 2:50 ` Jay Belanger 2005-11-21 8:10 ` Richard M. Stallman 1 sibling, 2 replies; 89+ messages in thread From: Stefan Monnier @ 2005-11-20 22:52 UTC (permalink / raw) Cc: emacs-devel > Sascha suggested `C-x &'; similarly there are `C-x *' or `C-x \'. > Are any of these acceptable? IIRC These are reserved for minor modes. Please read the minor and major mode coding conventions first. Stefan ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 89+ messages in thread
* Re: Key-binding clash between gnus and calc 2005-11-20 22:52 ` Stefan Monnier @ 2005-11-21 1:50 ` Jay Belanger 2005-11-21 2:50 ` Jay Belanger 1 sibling, 0 replies; 89+ messages in thread From: Jay Belanger @ 2005-11-21 1:50 UTC (permalink / raw) Cc: belanger Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> writes: >> Sascha suggested `C-x &'; similarly there are `C-x *' or `C-x >> \'. Are any of these acceptable? > > IIRC These are reserved >> for minor modes. Please read the minor and major > mode coding >> conventions first. That's `C-c', not `C-x'. I haven't found >> any general conventions for `C-x'. Jay ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 89+ messages in thread
* Re: Key-binding clash between gnus and calc 2005-11-20 22:52 ` Stefan Monnier 2005-11-21 1:50 ` Jay Belanger @ 2005-11-21 2:50 ` Jay Belanger 1 sibling, 0 replies; 89+ messages in thread From: Jay Belanger @ 2005-11-21 2:50 UTC (permalink / raw) Cc: belanger [Sorry if this is a duplicate; something strange seems to have happened to my last post.] Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> writes: >> Sascha suggested `C-x &'; similarly there are `C-x *' or `C-x \'. >> Are any of these acceptable? > > IIRC These are reserved for minor modes. Please read the minor and major > mode coding conventions first. The minor and major modes mention `C-c', not `C-x'. I haven't found any conventions on `C-x'. Jay ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 89+ messages in thread
* Re: Key-binding clash between gnus and calc 2005-11-20 18:14 ` Jay Belanger 2005-11-20 22:52 ` Stefan Monnier @ 2005-11-21 8:10 ` Richard M. Stallman 2005-11-22 5:01 ` Jay Belanger 1 sibling, 1 reply; 89+ messages in thread From: Richard M. Stallman @ 2005-11-21 8:10 UTC (permalink / raw) Cc: belanger, emacs-devel "Probably"? So M-+ isn't ruled out, then. I hesitate to use a single key for this purpose; it doesn't seem vital enough to get one. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 89+ messages in thread
* Re: Key-binding clash between gnus and calc 2005-11-21 8:10 ` Richard M. Stallman @ 2005-11-22 5:01 ` Jay Belanger 2005-11-22 10:28 ` David Kastrup ` (2 more replies) 0 siblings, 3 replies; 89+ messages in thread From: Jay Belanger @ 2005-11-22 5:01 UTC (permalink / raw) Cc: belanger "Richard M. Stallman" <rms@gnu.org> writes: > "Probably"? So M-+ isn't ruled out, then. > > I hesitate to use a single key for this purpose; > it doesn't seem vital enough to get one. Okay. How about `C-x C-0'? ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 89+ messages in thread
* Re: Key-binding clash between gnus and calc 2005-11-22 5:01 ` Jay Belanger @ 2005-11-22 10:28 ` David Kastrup 2005-11-22 14:41 ` Jay Belanger 2005-11-22 10:57 ` Juri Linkov 2005-11-22 11:12 ` Andreas Schwab 2 siblings, 1 reply; 89+ messages in thread From: David Kastrup @ 2005-11-22 10:28 UTC (permalink / raw) Cc: emacs-devel Jay Belanger <belanger@truman.edu> writes: > "Richard M. Stallman" <rms@gnu.org> writes: > >> "Probably"? So M-+ isn't ruled out, then. >> >> I hesitate to use a single key for this purpose; >> it doesn't seem vital enough to get one. > > Okay. > How about `C-x C-0'? C-0 is not available on ttys. -- David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 89+ messages in thread
* Re: Key-binding clash between gnus and calc 2005-11-22 10:28 ` David Kastrup @ 2005-11-22 14:41 ` Jay Belanger 0 siblings, 0 replies; 89+ messages in thread From: Jay Belanger @ 2005-11-22 14:41 UTC (permalink / raw) Cc: belanger Jay Belanger <belanger@truman.edu> wrote: >> How about `C-x C-0'? David Kastrup <dak@gnu.org> replied: > C-0 is not available on ttys. Juri Linkov <juri@jurta.org> answered: >`C-0' is not available on some terminals. Andreas Schwab <schwab@suse.de> responded: > C-0 is not available on a tty. My spider-sense is tingling; perhaps C-xC-0 wouldn't be a good choice. Juri Linkov <juri@jurta.org> writes: > However, this gave me a good idea: `C-x M-#', i.e. the current `M-#' > remains unchanged, but with the initial `C-x'. That is a good idea. I was trying to avoid changing modifiers too much; here `C-xM-#' would be `C-x M-S-3'. If nobody considers this too awkward, I'll put it forward. Jay ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 89+ messages in thread
* Re: Key-binding clash between gnus and calc 2005-11-22 5:01 ` Jay Belanger 2005-11-22 10:28 ` David Kastrup @ 2005-11-22 10:57 ` Juri Linkov 2005-11-22 16:02 ` David Kastrup 2005-11-22 11:12 ` Andreas Schwab 2 siblings, 1 reply; 89+ messages in thread From: Juri Linkov @ 2005-11-22 10:57 UTC (permalink / raw) Cc: emacs-devel >> "Probably"? So M-+ isn't ruled out, then. >> >> I hesitate to use a single key for this purpose; >> it doesn't seem vital enough to get one. > > Okay. > How about `C-x C-0'? `C-0' is not available on some terminals. However, this gave me a good idea: `C-x M-#', i.e. the current `M-#' remains unchanged, but with the initial `C-x'. -- Juri Linkov http://www.jurta.org/emacs/ ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 89+ messages in thread
* Re: Key-binding clash between gnus and calc 2005-11-22 10:57 ` Juri Linkov @ 2005-11-22 16:02 ` David Kastrup 2005-11-22 17:42 ` Jay Belanger 0 siblings, 1 reply; 89+ messages in thread From: David Kastrup @ 2005-11-22 16:02 UTC (permalink / raw) Cc: belanger, emacs-devel Juri Linkov <juri@jurta.org> writes: >>> "Probably"? So M-+ isn't ruled out, then. >>> >>> I hesitate to use a single key for this purpose; >>> it doesn't seem vital enough to get one. >> >> Okay. >> How about `C-x C-0'? > > `C-0' is not available on some terminals. > > However, this gave me a good idea: `C-x M-#', i.e. the current `M-#' > remains unchanged, but with the initial `C-x'. What's good about that? It is really contorted. -- David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 89+ messages in thread
* Re: Key-binding clash between gnus and calc 2005-11-22 16:02 ` David Kastrup @ 2005-11-22 17:42 ` Jay Belanger 2005-11-22 20:26 ` Robert J. Chassell ` (2 more replies) 0 siblings, 3 replies; 89+ messages in thread From: Jay Belanger @ 2005-11-22 17:42 UTC (permalink / raw) Cc: belanger David Kastrup <dak@gnu.org> writes: > Juri Linkov <juri@jurta.org> writes: ... >> However, this gave me a good idea: `C-x M-#', i.e. the current `M-#' >> remains unchanged, but with the initial `C-x'. > > What's good about that? It is really contorted. It preserves some continuity with the old keybinding, which is nice. But since I'm not the only person who thinks it's a bit awkward, something else might be in order. My best thought right now is `C-xC-,'. Nothing particularly mnemonic about it, but it seems off the beaten track enough that it might be acceptable, and since `,' doesn't require a shift on any keyboards that I've seen, this key sequence only requires the control key. Unless there are problems with this or somebody has a better idea, I'll suggest it. Jay ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 89+ messages in thread
* Re: Key-binding clash between gnus and calc 2005-11-22 17:42 ` Jay Belanger @ 2005-11-22 20:26 ` Robert J. Chassell 2005-11-22 20:41 ` Andreas Schwab 2005-11-22 21:14 ` Richard M. Stallman 2005-11-22 21:06 ` Robert J. Chassell 2005-11-23 6:06 ` Juri Linkov 2 siblings, 2 replies; 89+ messages in thread From: Robert J. Chassell @ 2005-11-22 20:26 UTC (permalink / raw) My best thought right now is `C-xC-,' So the idea is that one starts Calc mode with `C-x C-, C-,' where the prefix is the two keys, `C-x C-,' and for the other 28 or so bindings, do things like `C-x C-, g' and `C-x C-, y' That is doable. -- Robert J. Chassell bob@rattlesnake.com GnuPG Key ID: 004B4AC8 http://www.rattlesnake.com http://www.teak.cc ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 89+ messages in thread
* Re: Key-binding clash between gnus and calc 2005-11-22 20:26 ` Robert J. Chassell @ 2005-11-22 20:41 ` Andreas Schwab 2005-11-22 22:40 ` Jay Belanger 2005-11-22 21:14 ` Richard M. Stallman 1 sibling, 1 reply; 89+ messages in thread From: Andreas Schwab @ 2005-11-22 20:41 UTC (permalink / raw) Cc: emacs-devel "Robert J. Chassell" <bob@rattlesnake.com> writes: > My best thought right now is `C-xC-,' > > So the idea is that one starts Calc mode with `C-x C-, C-,' > where the prefix is the two keys, `C-x C-,' > and for the other 28 or so bindings, do things > like `C-x C-, g' and `C-x C-, y' > > That is doable. Except that C-, is not available on a tty. Andreas. -- Andreas Schwab, SuSE Labs, schwab@suse.de SuSE Linux Products GmbH, Maxfeldstraße 5, 90409 Nürnberg, Germany PGP key fingerprint = 58CA 54C7 6D53 942B 1756 01D3 44D5 214B 8276 4ED5 "And now for something completely different." ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 89+ messages in thread
* Re: Key-binding clash between gnus and calc 2005-11-22 20:41 ` Andreas Schwab @ 2005-11-22 22:40 ` Jay Belanger 2005-11-23 1:37 ` Robert J. Chassell 2005-11-23 5:14 ` Richard M. Stallman 0 siblings, 2 replies; 89+ messages in thread From: Jay Belanger @ 2005-11-22 22:40 UTC (permalink / raw) Cc: belanger Andreas Schwab <schwab@suse.de> writes: ... >> My best thought right now is `C-xC-,' > > Except that C-, is not available on a tty. You might have thought that I would have bright enough to check for that, especially since it came up before. You would have been wrong. "Robert J. Chassell" <bob@rattlesnake.com> writes: > It would be easier to start Emacs Calc mode with `M-+ M-+' than `C-x > C-, C-,' but `C-x C-, g' is easier to type on my keyboard than `M-+ g' But M-+ has been pretty much turned down. Since we pretty much need a two key prefix, one starting with C-x seems the way to go. I'm pretty sure C-x <letter or number> or even C-x C-<letter> would be turned down, so that leaves C-x <other symbol> or C-x C-<other symbol>. For C-x <other symbol>, <other symbol> = `!', `%', `&', `*', `_', `~', `|', `\', `"', `:' or `,' might work, and some of them might be accessible without the shift key on most keyboards. But without the extra control key, I'm not sure they're "out of the way" enough to get the green light. For C-x C-<symbol>, <other symbol>=`\' or `]' might work. Both characters are accessible on my keyboard without the shift key, but I don't think that's the case for all keyboards. So there is no perfect key sequence; are there any thoughts on which would be least annoying? Jay ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 89+ messages in thread
* Re: Key-binding clash between gnus and calc 2005-11-22 22:40 ` Jay Belanger @ 2005-11-23 1:37 ` Robert J. Chassell 2005-11-23 4:15 ` Jay Belanger 2005-11-23 5:14 ` Richard M. Stallman 1 sibling, 1 reply; 89+ messages in thread From: Robert J. Chassell @ 2005-11-23 1:37 UTC (permalink / raw) You might have thought that I would have bright enough to check for that, especially since it came up before. You would have been wrong. Same here. I don't have any good suggestions for a new keybinding, except that it ought be as easy to type as the default for the past 15 years and preferably better. (Weirdly enough, nowadays I mostly use Calc mode for units' conversion, like from feet to meters or BTUs to joules.) -- Robert J. Chassell bob@rattlesnake.com GnuPG Key ID: 004B4AC8 http://www.rattlesnake.com http://www.teak.cc ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 89+ messages in thread
* Re: Key-binding clash between gnus and calc 2005-11-23 1:37 ` Robert J. Chassell @ 2005-11-23 4:15 ` Jay Belanger 0 siblings, 0 replies; 89+ messages in thread From: Jay Belanger @ 2005-11-23 4:15 UTC (permalink / raw) Cc: belanger "Robert J. Chassell" <bob@rattlesnake.com> writes: > You might have thought that I would have bright enough to check for > that, especially since it came up before. You would have been wrong. > > Same here. I don't have any good suggestions for a new keybinding, > except that it ought be as easy to type as the default for the past 15 > years and preferably better. Exactly. I've tried to narrow it down to some reasonable keybindings, but I'm only familiar with US keyboards, and I'm hoping that someone familiar with keyboards from more than one language will come along and narrow it down some more. > (Weirdly enough, nowadays I mostly use Calc mode for units' > conversion, like from feet to meters or BTUs to joules.) Why is that weird? Jay ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 89+ messages in thread
* Re: Key-binding clash between gnus and calc 2005-11-22 22:40 ` Jay Belanger 2005-11-23 1:37 ` Robert J. Chassell @ 2005-11-23 5:14 ` Richard M. Stallman 2005-11-23 6:29 ` Jay Belanger 1 sibling, 1 reply; 89+ messages in thread From: Richard M. Stallman @ 2005-11-23 5:14 UTC (permalink / raw) Cc: belanger, emacs-devel For C-x <other symbol>, <other symbol> = `!', `%', `&', `*', `_', `~', `|', `\', `"', `:' or `,' might work, and some of them might be accessible without the shift key on most keyboards. But without the extra control key, I'm not sure they're "out of the way" enough to get the green light. One of those might be ok. Perhaps any of them is ok. I see no particular reason to oppose the use of any of them. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 89+ messages in thread
* Re: Key-binding clash between gnus and calc 2005-11-23 5:14 ` Richard M. Stallman @ 2005-11-23 6:29 ` Jay Belanger 2005-11-23 8:17 ` David Kastrup 2005-11-24 3:58 ` Richard M. Stallman 0 siblings, 2 replies; 89+ messages in thread From: Jay Belanger @ 2005-11-23 6:29 UTC (permalink / raw) Cc: belanger "Richard M. Stallman" <rms@gnu.org> writes: > For C-x <other symbol>, <other symbol> = `!', `%', `&', `*', `_', `~', > `|', `\', `"', `:' or `,' might work, and some of them might be > accessible without the shift key on most keyboards. But without the > extra control key, I'm not sure they're "out of the way" enough to get > the green light. > > One of those might be ok. Perhaps any of them is ok. > I see no particular reason to oppose the use of any of them. Okay, great. It looks like the only symbol listed above that is consistently available without a modifier key (to avoid having to change the modifier keys while typing the key sequence in) is the comma. Before I formally request the keybinding, are there any objections to using `C-x,' for `calc-dispatch'? Jay ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 89+ messages in thread
* Re: Key-binding clash between gnus and calc 2005-11-23 6:29 ` Jay Belanger @ 2005-11-23 8:17 ` David Kastrup 2005-11-23 9:19 ` Juri Linkov 2005-11-23 11:53 ` Jay Belanger 2005-11-24 3:58 ` Richard M. Stallman 1 sibling, 2 replies; 89+ messages in thread From: David Kastrup @ 2005-11-23 8:17 UTC (permalink / raw) Cc: emacs-devel Jay Belanger <belanger@truman.edu> writes: > "Richard M. Stallman" <rms@gnu.org> writes: > >> For C-x <other symbol>, <other symbol> = `!', `%', `&', `*', `_', `~', >> `|', `\', `"', `:' or `,' might work, and some of them might be >> accessible without the shift key on most keyboards. But without the >> extra control key, I'm not sure they're "out of the way" enough to get >> the green light. >> >> One of those might be ok. Perhaps any of them is ok. >> I see no particular reason to oppose the use of any of them. > > Okay, great. > It looks like the only symbol listed above that is consistently > available without a modifier key (to avoid having to change the > modifier keys while typing the key sequence in) is the comma. > > Before I formally request the keybinding, are there any objections to > using `C-x,' for `calc-dispatch'? It's so unmnemonic. # at least means "number". I don't have a better suggestion, though. -- David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 89+ messages in thread
* Re: Key-binding clash between gnus and calc 2005-11-23 8:17 ` David Kastrup @ 2005-11-23 9:19 ` Juri Linkov 2005-11-23 9:42 ` David Kastrup 2005-11-24 3:57 ` Richard M. Stallman 2005-11-23 11:53 ` Jay Belanger 1 sibling, 2 replies; 89+ messages in thread From: Juri Linkov @ 2005-11-23 9:19 UTC (permalink / raw) Cc: belanger, emacs-devel >> It looks like the only symbol listed above that is consistently >> available without a modifier key (to avoid having to change the >> modifier keys while typing the key sequence in) is the comma. >> >> Before I formally request the keybinding, are there any objections to >> using `C-x,' for `calc-dispatch'? > > It's so unmnemonic. # at least means "number". I agree. `,' has "next, please" mnemonics like e.g. in `M-,' (next-tag). > I don't have a better suggestion, though. From this long discussion I got the impression that the best way to satisfy everyone and not to annoy long-time calc users is to leave the old `M-#' calc keybinding unchanged. The fact that it is not available in gnus is not a tragedy. It does nothing disastrous when accidentally typed in the gnus summary buffer (unlike M-g where rescanning the group without the user's consent is not desirable). -- Juri Linkov http://www.jurta.org/emacs/ ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 89+ messages in thread
* Re: Key-binding clash between gnus and calc 2005-11-23 9:19 ` Juri Linkov @ 2005-11-23 9:42 ` David Kastrup 2005-11-23 9:47 ` Juri Linkov 2005-11-24 3:57 ` Richard M. Stallman 1 sibling, 1 reply; 89+ messages in thread From: David Kastrup @ 2005-11-23 9:42 UTC (permalink / raw) Cc: belanger, emacs-devel Juri Linkov <juri@jurta.org> writes: >>> It looks like the only symbol listed above that is consistently >>> available without a modifier key (to avoid having to change the >>> modifier keys while typing the key sequence in) is the comma. >>> >>> Before I formally request the keybinding, are there any objections to >>> using `C-x,' for `calc-dispatch'? >> >> It's so unmnemonic. # at least means "number". > > I agree. `,' has "next, please" mnemonics like e.g. in `M-,' (next-tag). next please, like in C-x # runs the command server-edit which is an interactive compiled Lisp function in `server.el'. It is bound to C-x #. (server-edit &optional ARG) Switch to next server editing buffer; say "Done" for current buffer. [...] Too bad that we are not in keybinding restructuring mode, but it would look like a candidate after the release. -- David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 89+ messages in thread
* Re: Key-binding clash between gnus and calc 2005-11-23 9:42 ` David Kastrup @ 2005-11-23 9:47 ` Juri Linkov 2005-11-23 10:04 ` David Kastrup 0 siblings, 1 reply; 89+ messages in thread From: Juri Linkov @ 2005-11-23 9:47 UTC (permalink / raw) Cc: belanger, emacs-devel > Too bad that we are not in keybinding restructuring mode, but it would > look like a candidate after the release. I'd rather bind `C-x ,' to the command `next-release'. -- Juri Linkov http://www.jurta.org/emacs/ ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 89+ messages in thread
* Re: Key-binding clash between gnus and calc 2005-11-23 9:47 ` Juri Linkov @ 2005-11-23 10:04 ` David Kastrup 0 siblings, 0 replies; 89+ messages in thread From: David Kastrup @ 2005-11-23 10:04 UTC (permalink / raw) Cc: belanger, emacs-devel Juri Linkov <juri@jurta.org> writes: >> Too bad that we are not in keybinding restructuring mode, but it >> would look like a candidate after the release. > > I'd rather bind `C-x ,' to the command `next-release'. I don't think it is used as frequently as to warrant a keybinding of its own. -- David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 89+ messages in thread
* Re: Key-binding clash between gnus and calc 2005-11-23 9:19 ` Juri Linkov 2005-11-23 9:42 ` David Kastrup @ 2005-11-24 3:57 ` Richard M. Stallman 1 sibling, 0 replies; 89+ messages in thread From: Richard M. Stallman @ 2005-11-24 3:57 UTC (permalink / raw) Cc: belanger, emacs-devel From this long discussion I got the impression that the best way to satisfy everyone and not to annoy long-time calc users is to leave the old `M-#' calc keybinding unchanged. I never agreed to use M-# as a global binding for Calc, and I don't think I should. So it cannot stay as it is. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 89+ messages in thread
* Re: Key-binding clash between gnus and calc 2005-11-23 8:17 ` David Kastrup 2005-11-23 9:19 ` Juri Linkov @ 2005-11-23 11:53 ` Jay Belanger 2005-11-24 3:58 ` Richard M. Stallman ` (2 more replies) 1 sibling, 3 replies; 89+ messages in thread From: Jay Belanger @ 2005-11-23 11:53 UTC (permalink / raw) Cc: belanger David Kastrup <dak@gnu.org> writes: > Jay Belanger <belanger@truman.edu> writes: ... >> Before I formally request the keybinding, are there any objections to >> using `C-x,' for `calc-dispatch'? > > It's so unmnemonic. # at least means "number". I don't have a better > suggestion, though. The sequence `C-x*' has the slight advantage of using a math operator at the cost of being slightly more difficult to type. Jay ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 89+ messages in thread
* Re: Key-binding clash between gnus and calc 2005-11-23 11:53 ` Jay Belanger @ 2005-11-24 3:58 ` Richard M. Stallman 2005-11-27 3:27 ` Jay Belanger 2005-11-24 8:48 ` Sascha Wilde 2005-11-24 10:40 ` Juri Linkov 2 siblings, 1 reply; 89+ messages in thread From: Richard M. Stallman @ 2005-11-24 3:58 UTC (permalink / raw) Cc: belanger, emacs-devel The sequence `C-x*' has the slight advantage of using a math operator at the cost of being slightly more difficult to type. I would not object to using that. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 89+ messages in thread
* Re: Key-binding clash between gnus and calc 2005-11-24 3:58 ` Richard M. Stallman @ 2005-11-27 3:27 ` Jay Belanger 0 siblings, 0 replies; 89+ messages in thread From: Jay Belanger @ 2005-11-27 3:27 UTC (permalink / raw) Cc: belanger "Richard M. Stallman" <rms@gnu.org> writes: > The sequence `C-x*' has the slight advantage of using a math operator > at the cost of being slightly more difficult to type. > > I would not object to using that. `C-x*' it is, then, for `calc-dispatch'. I'll make the change on Monday. Jay ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 89+ messages in thread
* Re: Key-binding clash between gnus and calc 2005-11-23 11:53 ` Jay Belanger 2005-11-24 3:58 ` Richard M. Stallman @ 2005-11-24 8:48 ` Sascha Wilde 2005-11-24 12:18 ` Robert J. Chassell 2005-11-25 20:22 ` Jay Belanger 2005-11-24 10:40 ` Juri Linkov 2 siblings, 2 replies; 89+ messages in thread From: Sascha Wilde @ 2005-11-24 8:48 UTC (permalink / raw) Cc: emacs-devel Jay Belanger <belanger@truman.edu> wrote: > The sequence `C-x*' has the slight advantage of using a math operator > at the cost of being slightly more difficult to type. I like this one. Its mnemonic, easy enough to type (at least on US and germane Layouts) and Richard said he wouldn't object. Has anyone checked if it is used in any of the major modes, which are already part of Emacs? sascha -- Sascha Wilde We're Germans and we use Unix. That's a combination of two demographic groups known to have no sense of humour whatsoever. -- Hanno Mueller in de.comp.os.unix.programming ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 89+ messages in thread
* Re: Key-binding clash between gnus and calc 2005-11-24 8:48 ` Sascha Wilde @ 2005-11-24 12:18 ` Robert J. Chassell 2005-11-24 13:07 ` Michael Cadilhac 2005-11-25 15:49 ` Richard M. Stallman 2005-11-25 20:22 ` Jay Belanger 1 sibling, 2 replies; 89+ messages in thread From: Robert J. Chassell @ 2005-11-24 12:18 UTC (permalink / raw) On an American keyboard, the prefix `C-x*' is harder to type than `C-x\'. (I do not know about other keyboards with default bindings. As far as I know, `C-x\' is undefined.) Thus, `C-x\g' (calc-grab-region) is not bad for such a command. -- Robert J. Chassell bob@rattlesnake.com GnuPG Key ID: 004B4AC8 http://www.rattlesnake.com http://www.teak.cc ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 89+ messages in thread
* Re: Key-binding clash between gnus and calc 2005-11-24 12:18 ` Robert J. Chassell @ 2005-11-24 13:07 ` Michael Cadilhac 2005-11-24 14:00 ` Lennart Borgman 2005-11-24 14:45 ` Robert J. Chassell 2005-11-25 15:49 ` Richard M. Stallman 1 sibling, 2 replies; 89+ messages in thread From: Michael Cadilhac @ 2005-11-24 13:07 UTC (permalink / raw) Cc: emacs-devel "Robert J. Chassell" <bob@rattlesnake.com> writes: > On an American keyboard, the prefix `C-x*' is harder to type than > `C-x\'. (I do not know about other keyboards with default bindings. > As far as I know, `C-x\' is undefined.) > > Thus, `C-x\g' (calc-grab-region) is not bad for such a command. Well, on a french keyboard, the `\' key is AltGR+8 (Yes, it's silly). In other words, it's one of the harder thing to type (using thumbs and index of the same hand) :-) -- Michael Cadilhac, a.k.a. Micha [mika] | Epita/LRDE promo 2007 | )\._.,--....,'``. 123 av. de Fontainebleau | 08.70.65.13.14 | /. _.. \ _\ (` ._,. 94270 Le Kremlin Bicetre | 06.23.20.31.30 | '._.-(,_..'--(,_...`-..' ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 89+ messages in thread
* Re: Key-binding clash between gnus and calc 2005-11-24 13:07 ` Michael Cadilhac @ 2005-11-24 14:00 ` Lennart Borgman 2005-11-24 14:45 ` Robert J. Chassell 1 sibling, 0 replies; 89+ messages in thread From: Lennart Borgman @ 2005-11-24 14:00 UTC (permalink / raw) Cc: bob, emacs-devel Michael Cadilhac wrote: >"Robert J. Chassell" <bob@rattlesnake.com> writes: > > > >>On an American keyboard, the prefix `C-x*' is harder to type than >>`C-x\'. (I do not know about other keyboards with default bindings. >>As far as I know, `C-x\' is undefined.) >> >>Thus, `C-x\g' (calc-grab-region) is not bad for such a command. >> >> > >Well, on a french keyboard, the `\' key is AltGR+8 (Yes, it's silly). > >In other words, it's one of the harder thing to type (using thumbs >and index of the same hand) :-) > > On a swedish keyboard it it AltGr +. But talking about "hard to type" I wonder if people here does not use "StickyKeys"? (This is platform dependent with a bit different names but at least exists in w32 and Gnome.) With "StickyKeys" you type the keys one-by-one. A real pain-saver when you are using Emacs keys. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 89+ messages in thread
* Re: Key-binding clash between gnus and calc 2005-11-24 13:07 ` Michael Cadilhac 2005-11-24 14:00 ` Lennart Borgman @ 2005-11-24 14:45 ` Robert J. Chassell 2005-11-24 17:12 ` Jay Belanger 1 sibling, 1 reply; 89+ messages in thread From: Robert J. Chassell @ 2005-11-24 14:45 UTC (permalink / raw) Cc: emacs-devel Well, on a french keyboard, the `\' key is AltGR+8 That is bad. We should avoid it. Perhaps we could follow Juri Linkov's suggestion: Another variant ... is the equals sign. `C-x =' is currently occupied by the help commands `what-cursor-position' and `describe-char'. But Kim recently suggested to rebind them to `C-h c', so `C-x =' will be available for calc. ... we could save `C-x *' for some future use ... -- Robert J. Chassell bob@rattlesnake.com GnuPG Key ID: 004B4AC8 http://www.rattlesnake.com http://www.teak.cc ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 89+ messages in thread
* Re: Key-binding clash between gnus and calc 2005-11-24 14:45 ` Robert J. Chassell @ 2005-11-24 17:12 ` Jay Belanger 0 siblings, 0 replies; 89+ messages in thread From: Jay Belanger @ 2005-11-24 17:12 UTC (permalink / raw) Cc: belanger "Robert J. Chassell" <bob@rattlesnake.com> writes: > Well, on a french keyboard, the `\' key is AltGR+8 > > That is bad. We should avoid it. Perhaps we could follow Juri > Linkov's suggestion: > > Another variant ... is the equals sign. > > `C-x =' is currently occupied by the help commands > `what-cursor-position' and `describe-char'. But Kim recently > suggested to rebind them to `C-h c', so `C-x =' will be available > for calc. That would be great, if the rebinding of `describe-char' takes place before the next release. Perhaps Kim could comment on this. (Also, is `=' easily accessible on most keyboards?) Jay ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 89+ messages in thread
* Re: Key-binding clash between gnus and calc 2005-11-24 12:18 ` Robert J. Chassell 2005-11-24 13:07 ` Michael Cadilhac @ 2005-11-25 15:49 ` Richard M. Stallman 1 sibling, 0 replies; 89+ messages in thread From: Richard M. Stallman @ 2005-11-25 15:49 UTC (permalink / raw) Cc: emacs-devel On an American keyboard, the prefix `C-x*' is harder to type than `C-x\'. I would agree to C-x \ for Calc. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 89+ messages in thread
* Re: Key-binding clash between gnus and calc 2005-11-24 8:48 ` Sascha Wilde 2005-11-24 12:18 ` Robert J. Chassell @ 2005-11-25 20:22 ` Jay Belanger 2005-11-27 20:04 ` Juri Linkov 1 sibling, 1 reply; 89+ messages in thread From: Jay Belanger @ 2005-11-25 20:22 UTC (permalink / raw) Cc: belanger Sascha Wilde <wilde@sha-bang.de> writes: > Jay Belanger <belanger@truman.edu> wrote: > >> The sequence `C-x*' has the slight advantage of using a math operator >> at the cost of being slightly more difficult to type. > > I like this one. Its mnemonic, easy enough to type (at least on US and > germane Layouts) and Richard said he wouldn't object. Robert J. Chassell <bob@rattlesnake.com> writes: > On an American keyboard, the prefix `C-x*' is harder to type than > `C-x\'. (I do not know about other keyboards with default bindings. > As far as I know, `C-x\' is undefined.) How much harder do you find it? Given that you agree that `C-x\' should be avoided, do you find `C-x*' too awkward? Robert J. Chassell <bob@rattlesnake.com> later wrote: >> Well, on a french keyboard, the `\' key is AltGR+8 > > That is bad. We should avoid it. Perhaps we could follow Juri > Linkov's suggestion: > > Another variant ... is the equals sign. > > `C-x =' is currently occupied by the help commands > `what-cursor-position' and `describe-char'. But Kim recently > suggested to rebind them to `C-h c', so `C-x =' will be available > for calc. Since `C-x=' won't be available, it seems to come down to `C-x*' and `C-x\'. (There are others available, but none of which seem to have any advantages, and these two have gotten the green light.) The awkwardness of `C-x\' on some keyboards seems to outweigh it's advantage on the American keyboard. The `C-x*' isn't as nice for me as `C-x\', but I still don't find it that bad. Unless there are serious objections, it looks to me like `C-x*' is the best choice. Jay ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 89+ messages in thread
* Re: Key-binding clash between gnus and calc 2005-11-25 20:22 ` Jay Belanger @ 2005-11-27 20:04 ` Juri Linkov 2005-11-28 4:46 ` Richard M. Stallman 0 siblings, 1 reply; 89+ messages in thread From: Juri Linkov @ 2005-11-27 20:04 UTC (permalink / raw) Cc: emacs-devel > Since `C-x=' won't be available, it seems to come down to `C-x*' and > `C-x\'. (There are others available, but none of which seem to have > any advantages, and these two have gotten the green light.) > The awkwardness of `C-x\' on some keyboards seems to outweigh it's > advantage on the American keyboard. The `C-x*' isn't as nice for me > as `C-x\', but I still don't find it that bad. > Unless there are serious objections, it looks to me like `C-x*' is the > best choice. If there is no hurry with the decision, then given the fact that there are better keybindings, what about the following plan? 1. Bind `C-h =' to `what-cursor-position' and `C-h c' to `describe-char', but keep `C-x =' bound to `what-cursor-position'. 2. Document everywhere in the documentation that `C-h =' is the new keybinding for `what-cursor-position' and `C-x =' is deprecated. 3. After the release rebind `C-x =' to `calc-dispatch'. Or alternatively, as David suggested, bind `C-x ,' to `server-edit' and rebind `C-x #' to `calc-dispatch' after the release. -- Juri Linkov http://www.jurta.org/emacs/ ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 89+ messages in thread
* Re: Key-binding clash between gnus and calc 2005-11-27 20:04 ` Juri Linkov @ 2005-11-28 4:46 ` Richard M. Stallman 0 siblings, 0 replies; 89+ messages in thread From: Richard M. Stallman @ 2005-11-28 4:46 UTC (permalink / raw) Cc: belanger, emacs-devel If there is no hurry with the decision, then given the fact that there are better keybindings, what about the following plan? 1. Bind `C-h =' to `what-cursor-position' and `C-h c' to `describe-char', but keep `C-x =' bound to `what-cursor-position'. Please let's not devote attention at this point to ideas for changes in old key bindings. Let's stick to fixing bugs. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 89+ messages in thread
* Re: Key-binding clash between gnus and calc 2005-11-23 11:53 ` Jay Belanger 2005-11-24 3:58 ` Richard M. Stallman 2005-11-24 8:48 ` Sascha Wilde @ 2005-11-24 10:40 ` Juri Linkov 2005-11-25 15:49 ` Richard M. Stallman 2 siblings, 1 reply; 89+ messages in thread From: Juri Linkov @ 2005-11-24 10:40 UTC (permalink / raw) Cc: emacs-devel > The sequence `C-x*' has the slight advantage of using a math operator > at the cost of being slightly more difficult to type. Yep, `*' is mnemonic for calc. Another variant related to calc that could be considered is the equals sign. It is mnemonic for calc as well since it is used to indicate mathematical equality, and easy to type. `C-x =' is currently occupied by the help commands `what-cursor-position' and `describe-char'. But Kim recently suggested to rebind them to `C-h c', so `C-x =' will be available for calc. Using `C-x =' for calc also has the advantage that no new keybinding will be occupied, so we could save `C-x *' for some future use that is more needed. -- Juri Linkov http://www.jurta.org/emacs/ ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 89+ messages in thread
* Re: Key-binding clash between gnus and calc 2005-11-24 10:40 ` Juri Linkov @ 2005-11-25 15:49 ` Richard M. Stallman 0 siblings, 0 replies; 89+ messages in thread From: Richard M. Stallman @ 2005-11-25 15:49 UTC (permalink / raw) Cc: belanger, emacs-devel `C-x =' is currently occupied by the help commands `what-cursor-position' and `describe-char'. But Kim recently suggested to rebind them to `C-h c', I don't want to change that old traditional binding. Certainly not now. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 89+ messages in thread
* Re: Key-binding clash between gnus and calc 2005-11-23 6:29 ` Jay Belanger 2005-11-23 8:17 ` David Kastrup @ 2005-11-24 3:58 ` Richard M. Stallman 1 sibling, 0 replies; 89+ messages in thread From: Richard M. Stallman @ 2005-11-24 3:58 UTC (permalink / raw) Cc: belanger, emacs-devel Okay, great. It looks like the only symbol listed above that is consistently available without a modifier key (to avoid having to change the modifier keys while typing the key sequence in) is the comma. Before I formally request the keybinding, are there any objections to using `C-x,' for `calc-dispatch'? I tend to think we should save that for some future use that is more needed. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 89+ messages in thread
* Re: Key-binding clash between gnus and calc 2005-11-22 20:26 ` Robert J. Chassell 2005-11-22 20:41 ` Andreas Schwab @ 2005-11-22 21:14 ` Richard M. Stallman 1 sibling, 0 replies; 89+ messages in thread From: Richard M. Stallman @ 2005-11-22 21:14 UTC (permalink / raw) Cc: emacs-devel C-, also is not available on ttys. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 89+ messages in thread
* Re: Key-binding clash between gnus and calc 2005-11-22 17:42 ` Jay Belanger 2005-11-22 20:26 ` Robert J. Chassell @ 2005-11-22 21:06 ` Robert J. Chassell 2005-11-22 21:35 ` Andreas Schwab 2005-11-23 6:06 ` Juri Linkov 2 siblings, 1 reply; 89+ messages in thread From: Robert J. Chassell @ 2005-11-22 21:06 UTC (permalink / raw) I did a recursive grep for `M-+' starting at emacs/ (igrep "grep" "M\\-\\+" (quote ("*")) "-i") The key does not appear bound to any command although lisp/term/iris-ansi.el does make sure it is in the function-key-map. (define-key function-key-map "\e[201q" [?\M-+]) Also, I did a recursive grep for `C-x C-,' starting at emacs/. The key is not bound or noted anywhere. (igrep "grep" "\\C\\-x\\C\\-,"(quote ("*")) "-i") It would be easier to start Emacs Calc mode with `M-+ M-+' than `C-x C-, C-,' but `C-x C-, g' is easier to type on my keyboard than `M-+ g' -- Robert J. Chassell bob@rattlesnake.com GnuPG Key ID: 004B4AC8 http://www.rattlesnake.com http://www.teak.cc ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 89+ messages in thread
* Re: Key-binding clash between gnus and calc 2005-11-22 21:06 ` Robert J. Chassell @ 2005-11-22 21:35 ` Andreas Schwab 0 siblings, 0 replies; 89+ messages in thread From: Andreas Schwab @ 2005-11-22 21:35 UTC (permalink / raw) Cc: emacs-devel "Robert J. Chassell" <bob@rattlesnake.com> writes: > I did a recursive grep for `M-+' starting at emacs/ > > (igrep "grep" "M\\-\\+" (quote ("*")) "-i") You won't find bindings in esc-map this way. > Also, I did a recursive grep for `C-x C-,' starting at emacs/. The > key is not bound or noted anywhere. > > (igrep "grep" "\\C\\-x\\C\\-,"(quote ("*")) "-i") You can never find a binding for C-x C-, this way. There are many ways to spell it, but this is not one of them. Andreas. -- Andreas Schwab, SuSE Labs, schwab@suse.de SuSE Linux Products GmbH, Maxfeldstraße 5, 90409 Nürnberg, Germany PGP key fingerprint = 58CA 54C7 6D53 942B 1756 01D3 44D5 214B 8276 4ED5 "And now for something completely different." ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 89+ messages in thread
* Re: Key-binding clash between gnus and calc 2005-11-22 17:42 ` Jay Belanger 2005-11-22 20:26 ` Robert J. Chassell 2005-11-22 21:06 ` Robert J. Chassell @ 2005-11-23 6:06 ` Juri Linkov 2005-11-23 6:24 ` Jay Belanger 2005-11-23 12:06 ` Robert J. Chassell 2 siblings, 2 replies; 89+ messages in thread From: Juri Linkov @ 2005-11-23 6:06 UTC (permalink / raw) Cc: emacs-devel >>> However, this gave me a good idea: `C-x M-#', i.e. the current `M-#' >>> remains unchanged, but with the initial `C-x'. >> >> What's good about that? It is really contorted. > > It preserves some continuity with the old keybinding, which is > nice. But since I'm not the only person who thinks it's a bit > awkward, something else might be in order. It is not much more awkward then current `M-#'. Surely it is not easy to type, but I think that easy to type is not a requirement for a key sequence to invoke calc. There are many frequently used commands in Emacs that require more easy to type keys, but still miss them. Just one example of frequently used command without a convenient keybinding is `other-window'. I think most users switch windows more often than invoke calc. It would be too shortsighted to allocate short and easy to type keybindings to less frequent commands. -- Juri Linkov http://www.jurta.org/emacs/ ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 89+ messages in thread
* Re: Key-binding clash between gnus and calc 2005-11-23 6:06 ` Juri Linkov @ 2005-11-23 6:24 ` Jay Belanger 2005-11-23 9:18 ` Juri Linkov 2005-11-23 12:06 ` Robert J. Chassell 1 sibling, 1 reply; 89+ messages in thread From: Jay Belanger @ 2005-11-23 6:24 UTC (permalink / raw) Cc: belanger Juri Linkov <juri@jurta.org> writes: >>>> However, this gave me a good idea: `C-x M-#', i.e. the current `M-#' >>>> remains unchanged, but with the initial `C-x'. >>> >>> What's good about that? It is really contorted. >> >> It preserves some continuity with the old keybinding, which is >> nice. But since I'm not the only person who thinks it's a bit >> awkward, something else might be in order. > > It is not much more awkward then current `M-#'. Surely it is not > easy to type, but I think that easy to type is not a requirement for > a key sequence to invoke calc. There are many frequently used > commands in Emacs that require more easy to type keys, but still > miss them. Just one example of frequently used command without > a convenient keybinding is `other-window'. The `other-window' command is invoked with `C-xo', which seems easy to type in. `C-xM-#', on the other hand, requires changing from a control key to a meta and (on my keyboard) shift key. I think that's a lot more awkward to type in (but then my fingers are less than nimble). Jay ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 89+ messages in thread
* Re: Key-binding clash between gnus and calc 2005-11-23 6:24 ` Jay Belanger @ 2005-11-23 9:18 ` Juri Linkov 0 siblings, 0 replies; 89+ messages in thread From: Juri Linkov @ 2005-11-23 9:18 UTC (permalink / raw) Cc: emacs-devel > The `other-window' command is invoked with `C-xo', which seems easy to > type in. `C-xM-#', on the other hand, requires changing from a control > key to a meta and (on my keyboard) shift key. I think that's a lot > more awkward to type in (but then my fingers are less than nimble). Ideally, very frequent commands like `other-window' should be very easy to type like e.g. 1-key `C-o'. Less frequent commands should have less easy to type keybindings. -- Juri Linkov http://www.jurta.org/emacs/ ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 89+ messages in thread
* Re: Key-binding clash between gnus and calc 2005-11-23 6:06 ` Juri Linkov 2005-11-23 6:24 ` Jay Belanger @ 2005-11-23 12:06 ` Robert J. Chassell 1 sibling, 0 replies; 89+ messages in thread From: Robert J. Chassell @ 2005-11-23 12:06 UTC (permalink / raw) ... easy to type is not a requirement for a key sequence to invoke calc. That depends on how frequently you invoke Calc. Certainly, I invoke `C-x o' (other-window) more often than Calc. But I invoke Calc more often than `M-DEL' (backward-kill-word). Both are default keybindings in the current distribution. Besides calculations, such as division or least squares, Calc is really good for conversions. Nowadays, I use that feature frequently. Of course, your meterage may vary -- in the United States, we say `your _milage_ may vary', and we speak of `barrels' of oil ... As for using `C-x,' for `calc-dispatch': it is unmnemonic. That is true. But `C-x,,' does well to turn Calc on or off using the same Calc interface as before. Also `C-x,g' does well for calc-grab-region, `C-x,y' for calc-copy-to-buffer, and so on. And I just tried `C-x,' in a tty as well as in X (with `-Q -D', yesterday's CVS snapshot), and in a xterm (`-Q -D -nw'). The keybinding is undefined in all. You can invoke it on an American keyboard; I do not know about others. -- Robert J. Chassell bob@rattlesnake.com GnuPG Key ID: 004B4AC8 http://www.rattlesnake.com http://www.teak.cc ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 89+ messages in thread
* Re: Key-binding clash between gnus and calc 2005-11-22 5:01 ` Jay Belanger 2005-11-22 10:28 ` David Kastrup 2005-11-22 10:57 ` Juri Linkov @ 2005-11-22 11:12 ` Andreas Schwab 2 siblings, 0 replies; 89+ messages in thread From: Andreas Schwab @ 2005-11-22 11:12 UTC (permalink / raw) Cc: emacs-devel Jay Belanger <belanger@truman.edu> writes: > How about `C-x C-0'? C-0 is not available on a tty. Andreas. -- Andreas Schwab, SuSE Labs, schwab@suse.de SuSE Linux Products GmbH, Maxfeldstraße 5, 90409 Nürnberg, Germany PGP key fingerprint = 58CA 54C7 6D53 942B 1756 01D3 44D5 214B 8276 4ED5 "And now for something completely different." ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 89+ messages in thread
* Re: Key-binding clash between gnus and calc 2005-11-16 10:48 ` Richard M. Stallman 2005-11-16 16:21 ` Jay Belanger @ 2005-11-20 23:47 ` Ryan Yeske 2005-11-20 23:57 ` David Kastrup 2005-11-21 21:39 ` Richard M. Stallman 1 sibling, 2 replies; 89+ messages in thread From: Ryan Yeske @ 2005-11-20 23:47 UTC (permalink / raw) Cc: emacs-devel Are there any conventions for global keybindings? Yes--you should always ask me. With all the recent talk about global bindings and calc, I thought I should mention that the recently added rcirc package includes two global bindings after it is loaded: C-c ` C-c C-SPC both run the command: rcirc-next-active-buffer: "Go to the ARGth rcirc buffer with activity. The function given by `rcirc-switch-to-buffer-function' is used to show the buffer." C-c ` was the original binding I used, and C-c C-SPC was added as people who were familiar ERC preferred that binding. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 89+ messages in thread
* Re: Key-binding clash between gnus and calc 2005-11-20 23:47 ` Ryan Yeske @ 2005-11-20 23:57 ` David Kastrup 2005-11-22 2:20 ` Richard M. Stallman 2005-11-21 21:39 ` Richard M. Stallman 1 sibling, 1 reply; 89+ messages in thread From: David Kastrup @ 2005-11-20 23:57 UTC (permalink / raw) Cc: rms, emacs-devel Ryan Yeske <rcyeske@gmail.com> writes: > Are there any conventions for global keybindings? > > Yes--you should always ask me. > > With all the recent talk about global bindings and calc, I thought I > should mention that the recently added rcirc package includes two > global bindings after it is loaded: > > C-c ` Used by AUCTeX. > C-c C-SPC Probably hard to enter on some terminals. > both run the command: rcirc-next-active-buffer: > "Go to the ARGth rcirc buffer with activity. > The function given by `rcirc-switch-to-buffer-function' is used to > show the buffer." > > C-c ` was the original binding I used, and C-c C-SPC was added as > people who were familiar ERC preferred that binding. It does not seem like rcirc would be a class of application that would be predetermined to occupy the global key space in that manner. Perhaps you could explain the rationale for using a global key binding here? -- David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 89+ messages in thread
* Re: Key-binding clash between gnus and calc 2005-11-20 23:57 ` David Kastrup @ 2005-11-22 2:20 ` Richard M. Stallman 2005-12-04 22:19 ` Ryan Yeske 0 siblings, 1 reply; 89+ messages in thread From: Richard M. Stallman @ 2005-11-22 2:20 UTC (permalink / raw) Cc: rcyeske, emacs-devel > With all the recent talk about global bindings and calc, I thought I > should mention that the recently added rcirc package includes two > global bindings after it is loaded: I had missed that part. rcirc should not bind any C-c keys globally. They are reserved for users, for major modes, or for minor modes. Remember that loading rcirc can occur even without running it. It's not right for loading the file to bind any keys. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 89+ messages in thread
* Re: Key-binding clash between gnus and calc 2005-11-22 2:20 ` Richard M. Stallman @ 2005-12-04 22:19 ` Ryan Yeske 2005-12-05 16:37 ` Richard M. Stallman 0 siblings, 1 reply; 89+ messages in thread From: Ryan Yeske @ 2005-12-04 22:19 UTC (permalink / raw) Cc: emacs-devel From: "Richard M. Stallman" <rms@gnu.org> CC: rcyeske@gmail.com, emacs-devel@gnu.org Reply-to: rms@gnu.org Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2005 21:20:58 -0500 > With all the recent talk about global bindings and calc, I thought I > should mention that the recently added rcirc package includes two > global bindings after it is loaded: I had missed that part. rcirc should not bind any C-c keys globally. They are reserved for users, for major modes, or for minor modes. What about C-x SPC? Remember that loading rcirc can occur even without running it. It's not right for loading the file to bind any keys. Is it acceptable to bind a global key when M-x rcirc is run? Ryan ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 89+ messages in thread
* Re: Key-binding clash between gnus and calc 2005-12-04 22:19 ` Ryan Yeske @ 2005-12-05 16:37 ` Richard M. Stallman 0 siblings, 0 replies; 89+ messages in thread From: Richard M. Stallman @ 2005-12-05 16:37 UTC (permalink / raw) Cc: emacs-devel Practically speaking there is not much difference between rcirc's binding a key all the time, and rcirc's binding it globally once rcirc runs. Either way, for all intents and purposes, that key can't be used for anything else. What job do you want this key to do? ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 89+ messages in thread
* Re: Key-binding clash between gnus and calc 2005-11-20 23:47 ` Ryan Yeske 2005-11-20 23:57 ` David Kastrup @ 2005-11-21 21:39 ` Richard M. Stallman 2005-11-21 22:15 ` Jay Belanger 1 sibling, 1 reply; 89+ messages in thread From: Richard M. Stallman @ 2005-11-21 21:39 UTC (permalink / raw) Cc: emacs-devel C-c C-SPC That's fine; it's reserved for major modes. C-c ` In the Lisp manual it says @item Sequences consisting of @kbd{C-c} followed by any other punctuation character are allocated for minor modes. Using them in a major mode is not absolutely prohibited, but if you do that, the major mode binding may be shadowed from time to time by minor modes. So you might want to change ` to a different character. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 89+ messages in thread
* Re: Key-binding clash between gnus and calc 2005-11-21 21:39 ` Richard M. Stallman @ 2005-11-21 22:15 ` Jay Belanger 0 siblings, 0 replies; 89+ messages in thread From: Jay Belanger @ 2005-11-21 22:15 UTC (permalink / raw) Cc: belanger "Richard M. Stallman" <rms@gnu.org> writes: > C-c C-SPC > > That's fine; it's reserved for major modes. > > C-c ` > > In the Lisp manual it says > > @item > Sequences consisting of @kbd{C-c} followed by any other punctuation > character are allocated for minor modes. Using them in a major mode is > not absolutely prohibited, but if you do that, the major mode binding > may be shadowed from time to time by minor modes. > > So you might want to change ` to a different character. These aren't major mode bindings, though. Once rcirc is loaded, they're global bindings. Jay ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 89+ messages in thread
* Re: Key-binding clash between gnus and calc 2005-11-15 16:45 Sascha Wilde 2005-11-15 17:02 ` David Kastrup @ 2005-11-15 17:16 ` Jay Belanger 2005-11-15 23:22 ` Richard M. Stallman 2005-11-17 7:55 ` Juri Linkov 2 siblings, 1 reply; 89+ messages in thread From: Jay Belanger @ 2005-11-15 17:16 UTC (permalink / raw) Cc: belanger Sascha Wilde <wilde@sha-bang.de> writes: > `M-#' is normally bound to `calc-dispatch', but in gnus it's bound to > `gnus-topic-unmark-topic' in groups buffer, to > `gnus-summary-unmark-as-processable' in summary and article buffer. > > I don't know which of them has the "older rights" to use this binding, > but anyway, to a regular user of both, gnus and calc (as me for > instance) the current state is quite inconvenient. As me for another example. Gnus has been part of Emacs longer, so if either one has rights, it would be gnus. However, gnus uses it only in gnus buffers, while Calc tries to use it globally. I don't know if there are any conventions for global keybindings like there are for major and minor mode keybindings, or where M-# would fit. Rebinding it in your init file may be convenient, (global-set-key "\C-cm" 'calc-dispatch) or somesuch. Jay ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 89+ messages in thread
* Re: Key-binding clash between gnus and calc 2005-11-15 17:16 ` Jay Belanger @ 2005-11-15 23:22 ` Richard M. Stallman 2005-11-16 8:30 ` Sascha Wilde 0 siblings, 1 reply; 89+ messages in thread From: Richard M. Stallman @ 2005-11-15 23:22 UTC (permalink / raw) Cc: belanger, emacs-devel As me for another example. Gnus has been part of Emacs longer, so if either one has rights, it would be gnus. However, gnus uses it only in gnus buffers, while Calc tries to use it globally. I think Calc had better look for a more obscure binding for this, or else leave it to users to make key bindings if they want one. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 89+ messages in thread
* Re: Key-binding clash between gnus and calc 2005-11-15 23:22 ` Richard M. Stallman @ 2005-11-16 8:30 ` Sascha Wilde 2005-11-20 1:17 ` Juri Linkov 0 siblings, 1 reply; 89+ messages in thread From: Sascha Wilde @ 2005-11-16 8:30 UTC (permalink / raw) Cc: belanger, emacs-devel [-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 846 bytes --] "Richard M. Stallman" <rms@gnu.org> wrote: > As me for another example. > Gnus has been part of Emacs longer, so if either one has rights, it > would be gnus. However, gnus uses it only in gnus buffers, while Calc > tries to use it globally. > > I think Calc had better look for a more obscure binding for this, How about something like `C-x &'? > or else leave it to users to make key bindings if they want one. Maybe this would be actually the best solution. Key bindings are getting real rare, and most applications coming with Emacs don't have a default binding to start them either. I think, having none would be better, than having one, which isn't really global. cheers sascha -- Sascha Wilde : "Lies, was ich meine, nicht, was ich schreibe." : (Urs Traenkner in de.alt.admin) [-- Attachment #1.2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 188 bytes --] [-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 142 bytes --] _______________________________________________ Emacs-devel mailing list Emacs-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-devel ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 89+ messages in thread
* Re: Key-binding clash between gnus and calc 2005-11-16 8:30 ` Sascha Wilde @ 2005-11-20 1:17 ` Juri Linkov 2005-11-20 9:54 ` Sascha Wilde 2005-11-20 10:22 ` Andreas Schwab 0 siblings, 2 replies; 89+ messages in thread From: Juri Linkov @ 2005-11-20 1:17 UTC (permalink / raw) Cc: rms, belanger, emacs-devel > "Richard M. Stallman" <rms@gnu.org> wrote: > >> As me for another example. >> Gnus has been part of Emacs longer, so if either one has rights, it >> would be gnus. However, gnus uses it only in gnus buffers, while Calc >> tries to use it globally. >> >> I think Calc had better look for a more obscure binding for this, > > How about something like `C-x &'? Then why not `C-x #'? -- Juri Linkov http://www.jurta.org/emacs/ ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 89+ messages in thread
* Re: Key-binding clash between gnus and calc 2005-11-20 1:17 ` Juri Linkov @ 2005-11-20 9:54 ` Sascha Wilde 2005-11-20 21:42 ` Juri Linkov 2005-11-20 10:22 ` Andreas Schwab 1 sibling, 1 reply; 89+ messages in thread From: Sascha Wilde @ 2005-11-20 9:54 UTC (permalink / raw) Cc: rms, belanger, emacs-devel Juri Linkov <juri@jurta.org> wrote: >> "Richard M. Stallman" <rms@gnu.org> wrote: >> >>> As me for another example. >>> Gnus has been part of Emacs longer, so if either one has rights, it >>> would be gnus. However, gnus uses it only in gnus buffers, while Calc >>> tries to use it globally. >>> >>> I think Calc had better look for a more obscure binding for this, >> >> How about something like `C-x &'? > > Then why not `C-x #'? `C-h k C-x #' will answer this question... ;-) sascha -- Sascha Wilde Wer HTML postet oder gepostetes HTML quotet oder sich gepostetes oder gequotetes HTML beschafft, um es in Verkehr zu bringen, wird geplonkt. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 89+ messages in thread
* Re: Key-binding clash between gnus and calc 2005-11-20 9:54 ` Sascha Wilde @ 2005-11-20 21:42 ` Juri Linkov 0 siblings, 0 replies; 89+ messages in thread From: Juri Linkov @ 2005-11-20 21:42 UTC (permalink / raw) Cc: rms, belanger, emacs-devel >>> How about something like `C-x &'? >> >> Then why not `C-x #'? > > `C-h k C-x #' will answer this question... ;-) `C-h k C-x #' => C-x # is undefined I haven't used server-edit for quite a while and forgot about its keybinding. This indicates that before accepting a global keybinding for calc, all Emacs packages (at least, in the Emacs source tree, and also popular packages not distributed with Emacs) should be carefully inspected for possible conflicts with a new calc global keybinding. -- Juri Linkov http://www.jurta.org/emacs/ ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 89+ messages in thread
* Re: Key-binding clash between gnus and calc 2005-11-20 1:17 ` Juri Linkov 2005-11-20 9:54 ` Sascha Wilde @ 2005-11-20 10:22 ` Andreas Schwab 1 sibling, 0 replies; 89+ messages in thread From: Andreas Schwab @ 2005-11-20 10:22 UTC (permalink / raw) Cc: Sascha Wilde, rms, belanger, emacs-devel Juri Linkov <juri@jurta.org> writes: > Then why not `C-x #'? Already taken for server-edit. Andreas. -- Andreas Schwab, SuSE Labs, schwab@suse.de SuSE Linux Products GmbH, Maxfeldstraße 5, 90409 Nürnberg, Germany PGP key fingerprint = 58CA 54C7 6D53 942B 1756 01D3 44D5 214B 8276 4ED5 "And now for something completely different." ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 89+ messages in thread
* Re: Key-binding clash between gnus and calc 2005-11-15 16:45 Sascha Wilde 2005-11-15 17:02 ` David Kastrup 2005-11-15 17:16 ` Jay Belanger @ 2005-11-17 7:55 ` Juri Linkov 2005-11-17 9:19 ` Miles Bader 2005-11-18 16:57 ` Richard M. Stallman 2 siblings, 2 replies; 89+ messages in thread From: Juri Linkov @ 2005-11-17 7:55 UTC (permalink / raw) Cc: emacs-devel > `M-#' is normally bound to `calc-dispatch', but in gnus it's bound to > `gnus-topic-unmark-topic' in groups buffer, to > `gnus-summary-unmark-as-processable' in summary and article buffer. > > I don't know which of them has the "older rights" to use this binding, > but anyway, to a regular user of both, gnus and calc (as me for > instance) the current state is quite inconvenient. I doubt that `M-#' in gnus is used too much, because it has one inconvenience which is not fixed for a long time. Unlike `#' which advances to the next article, `M-#' stays on the same article. To unmark several articles the user has to type `M-# C-n M-# C-n ...'. There is another key binding in gnus that conflicts with the global key binding. It is `M-g'. -- Juri Linkov http://www.jurta.org/emacs/ ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 89+ messages in thread
* Re: Key-binding clash between gnus and calc 2005-11-17 7:55 ` Juri Linkov @ 2005-11-17 9:19 ` Miles Bader 2005-11-17 9:51 ` Sascha Wilde 2005-11-18 16:57 ` Richard M. Stallman 1 sibling, 1 reply; 89+ messages in thread From: Miles Bader @ 2005-11-17 9:19 UTC (permalink / raw) Cc: Sascha Wilde, emacs-devel 2005/11/17, Juri Linkov <juri@jurta.org>: > I doubt that `M-#' in gnus is used too much, because it has one > inconvenience which is not fixed for a long time. Unlike `#' which > advances to the next article, `M-#' stays on the same article. Unmarking commands in Gnus follow a fairly regular pattern -- if key "foo" marks, then "M-foo" unmarks. This correspondence is _extremely_ useful, because one uses unmarking commands more rarely than the corresponding marking command, so a regular naming convention makes it easy to remember what they're bound to. However, despite the fact that they are used more rarely, they certainly are used. Note that unmarking commands are typically used to correct mistakes, not for large-scale changes, so for "#", being repeatable is quite important to normal usage; for "M-#", it's not. > There is another key binding in gnus that conflicts with the global > key binding. It is `M-g'. Yeah, so what? Another notable non-tragedy. -miles -- Do not taunt Happy Fun Ball. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 89+ messages in thread
* Re: Key-binding clash between gnus and calc 2005-11-17 9:19 ` Miles Bader @ 2005-11-17 9:51 ` Sascha Wilde 2005-11-17 10:01 ` Miles Bader ` (2 more replies) 0 siblings, 3 replies; 89+ messages in thread From: Sascha Wilde @ 2005-11-17 9:51 UTC (permalink / raw) Cc: Juri Linkov, emacs-devel, miles Miles Bader <snogglethorpe@gmail.com> wrote: > 2005/11/17, Juri Linkov <juri@jurta.org>: >> I doubt that `M-#' in gnus is used too much, because it has one >> inconvenience which is not fixed for a long time. Unlike `#' which >> advances to the next article, `M-#' stays on the same article. > > Unmarking commands in Gnus follow a fairly regular pattern -- if key > "foo" marks, then "M-foo" unmarks. This correspondence is _extremely_ > useful, because one uses unmarking commands more rarely than the > corresponding marking command, so a regular naming convention makes it > easy to remember what they're bound to. I agree, that the correspondence is quite use full, but I also do agree with Juri, that the slightly different behavior of M-# is extremely inconvenient. IMO this should be fixed, by making M-# advance to (like M-u does!). [...] >> There is another key binding in gnus that conflicts with the global >> key binding. It is `M-g'. > > Yeah, so what? Another notable non-tragedy. I agree, in this special case, that it is not tragic: Global Bindings Starting With M-g: key binding --- ------- M-g p previous-error M-g n next-error M-g g goto-line M-g ESC Prefix Command M-g M-p previous-error M-g M-n next-error M-g M-g goto-line previous-error and next-error just don't make any sense in gnus. (In fact, I'm not sure why they are global bindings anyway.) And goto-line isn't particularly use full in gnus buffers either. BUT, in general I think, that Emacs as a whole should be as consistent as possible. That is one reason why global bindings should be approved by Richard, and I thin that is a good thing[tm]. ;-) cheers sascha -- >++++++[<+++++++++++>-]<+.>+++[<++++++>-]<.---.---------.++++++.++++.--------- -.+++++++++++.+++++.>+++++++[<-------->-]<-.>++++++[<+++++++>-]<+.--.+++..---- ---.-.>++++++[<------>-]<.>++++[<+++++++++++++>-]<.------------.---.>++++++[<- ----->-]<-.>+++++[<+++++++>-]<.--.>+++[<++++++>-]<+.>++++++++[<--------->-]<--. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 89+ messages in thread
* Re: Key-binding clash between gnus and calc 2005-11-17 9:51 ` Sascha Wilde @ 2005-11-17 10:01 ` Miles Bader 2005-11-17 14:30 ` Andreas Schwab 2005-11-20 1:18 ` Juri Linkov 2 siblings, 0 replies; 89+ messages in thread From: Miles Bader @ 2005-11-17 10:01 UTC (permalink / raw) Cc: Juri Linkov, snogglethorpe, emacs-devel Sascha Wilde <wilde@sha-bang.de> writes: > agree with Juri, that the slightly different behavior of M-# is > extremely inconvenient. IMO this should be fixed, by making M-# > advance to (like M-u does!). Sounds fine to me. > BUT, in general I think, that Emacs as a whole should be as consistent > as possible. Sure, consistency, in general, is good. But absolute consistency is not necessary; sometimes it's more important to retain historical bindings, or to favor local consistency over global consistency. -miles -- o The existentialist, not having a pillow, goes everywhere with the book by Sullivan, _I am going to spit on your graves_. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 89+ messages in thread
* Re: Key-binding clash between gnus and calc 2005-11-17 9:51 ` Sascha Wilde 2005-11-17 10:01 ` Miles Bader @ 2005-11-17 14:30 ` Andreas Schwab 2005-11-20 1:18 ` Juri Linkov 2 siblings, 0 replies; 89+ messages in thread From: Andreas Schwab @ 2005-11-17 14:30 UTC (permalink / raw) Cc: Juri Linkov, miles, snogglethorpe, emacs-devel Sascha Wilde <wilde@sha-bang.de> writes: > previous-error and next-error just don't make any sense in gnus. (In > fact, I'm not sure why they are global bindings anyway.) You can use {previous,next}-error from any buffer, it will use the last used compilation/grep/diff buffer as reference. This is extremely convenient. Andreas. -- Andreas Schwab, SuSE Labs, schwab@suse.de SuSE Linux Products GmbH, Maxfeldstraße 5, 90409 Nürnberg, Germany PGP key fingerprint = 58CA 54C7 6D53 942B 1756 01D3 44D5 214B 8276 4ED5 "And now for something completely different." ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 89+ messages in thread
* Re: Key-binding clash between gnus and calc 2005-11-17 9:51 ` Sascha Wilde 2005-11-17 10:01 ` Miles Bader 2005-11-17 14:30 ` Andreas Schwab @ 2005-11-20 1:18 ` Juri Linkov 2005-11-20 4:16 ` Kevin Greiner 2 siblings, 1 reply; 89+ messages in thread From: Juri Linkov @ 2005-11-20 1:18 UTC (permalink / raw) Cc: miles, snogglethorpe, ding, emacs-devel [Cc'ed to ding@gnus.org] > I agree, that the correspondence is quite use full, but I also do > agree with Juri, that the slightly different behavior of M-# is > extremely inconvenient. IMO this should be fixed, by making M-# > advance to (like M-u does!). Actually, this is a bug in the the development version of Gnus (but not in the Gnus version in Emacs CVS). It also causes gnus-uu-unmark-thread to fail to unmark the whole thread. That's because gnus-summary-remove-process-mark doesn't return t anymore. The last expression of both gnus-summary-set-process-mark and gnus-summary-remove-process-mark is the call to gnus-summary-update-secondary-mark which explicitly returns t. But in gnus-summary-remove-process-mark this t gets lost due to dolist which returns nil. I think the right fix is to add the return value t as the last expression in gnus-summary-remove-process-mark. Could someone with CVS access to the Gnus repository on gnus.org fix this? -- Juri Linkov http://www.jurta.org/emacs/ ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 89+ messages in thread
* Re: Key-binding clash between gnus and calc 2005-11-20 1:18 ` Juri Linkov @ 2005-11-20 4:16 ` Kevin Greiner 2005-11-21 7:32 ` Juri Linkov 0 siblings, 1 reply; 89+ messages in thread From: Kevin Greiner @ 2005-11-20 4:16 UTC (permalink / raw) Cc: emacs-devel Juri Linkov <juri@jurta.org> writes: > [Cc'ed to ding@gnus.org] >> I agree, that the correspondence is quite use full, but I also do >> agree with Juri, that the slightly different behavior of M-# is >> extremely inconvenient. IMO this should be fixed, by making M-# >> advance to (like M-u does!). > > Actually, this is a bug in the the development version of Gnus > (but not in the Gnus version in Emacs CVS). It also causes > gnus-uu-unmark-thread to fail to unmark the whole thread. > > That's because gnus-summary-remove-process-mark doesn't return t > anymore. The last expression of both gnus-summary-set-process-mark > and gnus-summary-remove-process-mark is the call to > gnus-summary-update-secondary-mark which explicitly returns t. > But in gnus-summary-remove-process-mark this t gets lost due > to dolist which returns nil. I think the right fix is to add > the return value t as the last expression in > gnus-summary-remove-process-mark. > > Could someone with CVS access to the Gnus repository on gnus.org > fix this? Done. Kevin ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 89+ messages in thread
* Re: Key-binding clash between gnus and calc 2005-11-20 4:16 ` Kevin Greiner @ 2005-11-21 7:32 ` Juri Linkov 0 siblings, 0 replies; 89+ messages in thread From: Juri Linkov @ 2005-11-21 7:32 UTC (permalink / raw) Cc: ding, emacs-devel >> Actually, this is a bug in the the development version of Gnus >> (but not in the Gnus version in Emacs CVS). It also causes >> gnus-uu-unmark-thread to fail to unmark the whole thread. >> >> That's because gnus-summary-remove-process-mark doesn't return t >> anymore. The last expression of both gnus-summary-set-process-mark >> and gnus-summary-remove-process-mark is the call to >> gnus-summary-update-secondary-mark which explicitly returns t. >> But in gnus-summary-remove-process-mark this t gets lost due >> to dolist which returns nil. I think the right fix is to add >> the return value t as the last expression in >> gnus-summary-remove-process-mark. >> >> Could someone with CVS access to the Gnus repository on gnus.org >> fix this? > > Done. Thanks. I've also noticed a difference between gnus-uu-mark-thread and gnus-uu-unmark-thread: gnus-uu-mark-thread keeps point at the same place where it was invoked, but gnus-uu-unmark-thread advances point to the last processed article. Do you think they should behave the same in regard to preserving point after finishing? -- Juri Linkov http://www.jurta.org/emacs/ ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 89+ messages in thread
* Re: Key-binding clash between gnus and calc 2005-11-17 7:55 ` Juri Linkov 2005-11-17 9:19 ` Miles Bader @ 2005-11-18 16:57 ` Richard M. Stallman 2005-11-18 18:24 ` Reiner Steib 1 sibling, 1 reply; 89+ messages in thread From: Richard M. Stallman @ 2005-11-18 16:57 UTC (permalink / raw) Cc: wilde, emacs-devel I doubt that `M-#' in gnus is used too much, because it has one inconvenience which is not fixed for a long time. Unlike `#' which advances to the next article, `M-#' stays on the same article. To unmark several articles the user has to type `M-# C-n M-# C-n ...'. Because this is a local binding, it is just a Gnus issue, not a conflict with anything else. There is another key binding in gnus that conflicts with the global key binding. It is `M-g'. What does that do? (Is the global M-g binding of any use in Gnus buffers? Perhaps not much.) ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 89+ messages in thread
* Re: Key-binding clash between gnus and calc 2005-11-18 16:57 ` Richard M. Stallman @ 2005-11-18 18:24 ` Reiner Steib 0 siblings, 0 replies; 89+ messages in thread From: Reiner Steib @ 2005-11-18 18:24 UTC (permalink / raw) On Fri, Nov 18 2005, Richard M. Stallman wrote: > There is another key binding in gnus that conflicts with the global > key binding. It is `M-g'. > > What does that do? ,----[ Group buffer ] | M-g runs the command gnus-group-get-new-news-this-group | which is an interactive compiled Lisp function in `gnus-group.el'. | It is bound to M-g, <menu-bar> <Group> <Check for new articles>. | (gnus-group-get-new-news-this-group &optional n dont-scan) | | Check for newly arrived news in the current group (and the n-1 next groups). `---- ,----[ Summary buffer / Article buffer ] | M-g runs the command gnus-summary-rescan-group | which is an interactive compiled Lisp function in `gnus-sum.el'. | It is bound to M-g, Z G, <menu-bar> <Gnus> <Exit> <Rescan group>. | (gnus-summary-rescan-group &optional all) | | Exit the newsgroup, ask for new articles, and select the newsgroup. `---- > (Is the global M-g binding of any use in Gnus buffers? Perhaps not > much.) I don't think the `M-g ...' command are useful in the Gnus buffers (Group buffer and Summary/Article buffer). Bye, Reiner. -- ,,, (o o) ---ooO-(_)-Ooo--- | PGP key available | http://rsteib.home.pages.de/ ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 89+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2005-12-05 16:37 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 89+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed) -- links below jump to the message on this page -- [not found] <20051121194141.7FA5B1207F1@localhost.localdomain> 2005-11-22 10:57 ` Key-binding clash between gnus and calc Juri Linkov 2005-11-22 14:15 ` Chong Yidong 2005-11-22 17:30 ` Henrik Enberg 2005-11-22 17:54 ` Jay Belanger 2005-11-15 16:45 Sascha Wilde 2005-11-15 17:02 ` David Kastrup 2005-11-15 18:47 ` Sascha Wilde 2005-11-15 19:08 ` Miles Bader 2005-11-15 19:33 ` Jay Belanger 2005-11-16 10:48 ` Richard M. Stallman 2005-11-16 16:21 ` Jay Belanger 2005-11-17 14:07 ` Richard M. Stallman 2005-11-17 18:32 ` Robert J. Chassell 2005-11-17 21:40 ` Jay Belanger 2005-11-17 21:58 ` David Kastrup 2005-11-19 18:12 ` Robert J. Chassell 2005-11-20 13:29 ` Richard M. Stallman 2005-11-20 18:14 ` Jay Belanger 2005-11-20 22:52 ` Stefan Monnier 2005-11-21 1:50 ` Jay Belanger 2005-11-21 2:50 ` Jay Belanger 2005-11-21 8:10 ` Richard M. Stallman 2005-11-22 5:01 ` Jay Belanger 2005-11-22 10:28 ` David Kastrup 2005-11-22 14:41 ` Jay Belanger 2005-11-22 10:57 ` Juri Linkov 2005-11-22 16:02 ` David Kastrup 2005-11-22 17:42 ` Jay Belanger 2005-11-22 20:26 ` Robert J. Chassell 2005-11-22 20:41 ` Andreas Schwab 2005-11-22 22:40 ` Jay Belanger 2005-11-23 1:37 ` Robert J. Chassell 2005-11-23 4:15 ` Jay Belanger 2005-11-23 5:14 ` Richard M. Stallman 2005-11-23 6:29 ` Jay Belanger 2005-11-23 8:17 ` David Kastrup 2005-11-23 9:19 ` Juri Linkov 2005-11-23 9:42 ` David Kastrup 2005-11-23 9:47 ` Juri Linkov 2005-11-23 10:04 ` David Kastrup 2005-11-24 3:57 ` Richard M. Stallman 2005-11-23 11:53 ` Jay Belanger 2005-11-24 3:58 ` Richard M. Stallman 2005-11-27 3:27 ` Jay Belanger 2005-11-24 8:48 ` Sascha Wilde 2005-11-24 12:18 ` Robert J. Chassell 2005-11-24 13:07 ` Michael Cadilhac 2005-11-24 14:00 ` Lennart Borgman 2005-11-24 14:45 ` Robert J. Chassell 2005-11-24 17:12 ` Jay Belanger 2005-11-25 15:49 ` Richard M. Stallman 2005-11-25 20:22 ` Jay Belanger 2005-11-27 20:04 ` Juri Linkov 2005-11-28 4:46 ` Richard M. Stallman 2005-11-24 10:40 ` Juri Linkov 2005-11-25 15:49 ` Richard M. Stallman 2005-11-24 3:58 ` Richard M. Stallman 2005-11-22 21:14 ` Richard M. Stallman 2005-11-22 21:06 ` Robert J. Chassell 2005-11-22 21:35 ` Andreas Schwab 2005-11-23 6:06 ` Juri Linkov 2005-11-23 6:24 ` Jay Belanger 2005-11-23 9:18 ` Juri Linkov 2005-11-23 12:06 ` Robert J. Chassell 2005-11-22 11:12 ` Andreas Schwab 2005-11-20 23:47 ` Ryan Yeske 2005-11-20 23:57 ` David Kastrup 2005-11-22 2:20 ` Richard M. Stallman 2005-12-04 22:19 ` Ryan Yeske 2005-12-05 16:37 ` Richard M. Stallman 2005-11-21 21:39 ` Richard M. Stallman 2005-11-21 22:15 ` Jay Belanger 2005-11-15 17:16 ` Jay Belanger 2005-11-15 23:22 ` Richard M. Stallman 2005-11-16 8:30 ` Sascha Wilde 2005-11-20 1:17 ` Juri Linkov 2005-11-20 9:54 ` Sascha Wilde 2005-11-20 21:42 ` Juri Linkov 2005-11-20 10:22 ` Andreas Schwab 2005-11-17 7:55 ` Juri Linkov 2005-11-17 9:19 ` Miles Bader 2005-11-17 9:51 ` Sascha Wilde 2005-11-17 10:01 ` Miles Bader 2005-11-17 14:30 ` Andreas Schwab 2005-11-20 1:18 ` Juri Linkov 2005-11-20 4:16 ` Kevin Greiner 2005-11-21 7:32 ` Juri Linkov 2005-11-18 16:57 ` Richard M. Stallman 2005-11-18 18:24 ` Reiner Steib
Code repositories for project(s) associated with this public inbox https://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/emacs.git This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox; as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).