From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: "Drew Adams" Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: RE: Unuseful keybindings Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2012 20:39:01 -0800 Message-ID: <876A7D1112084247AE53F7EE42B4587C@us.oracle.com> References: <87sj73qzvl.fsf@gmail.com> <87623zquvw.fsf@gmail.com><87ip7zdud3.fsf@gmail.com> <87ehiiu5x7.fsf@gnu.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1356151165 11522 80.91.229.3 (22 Dec 2012 04:39:25 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 22 Dec 2012 04:39:25 +0000 (UTC) Cc: 'Mathias Dahl' , 'Andreas Schwab' , emacs-devel@gnu.org To: "'Chong Yidong'" , "'Thierry Volpiatto'" Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sat Dec 22 05:39:39 2012 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1TmGs3-0006Nq-7r for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sat, 22 Dec 2012 05:39:35 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:50940 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1TmGro-0007BT-Rk for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 21 Dec 2012 23:39:20 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:54815) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1TmGri-0007AS-VC for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 21 Dec 2012 23:39:19 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1TmGrg-0005TH-7j for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 21 Dec 2012 23:39:14 -0500 Original-Received: from aserp1040.oracle.com ([141.146.126.69]:23197) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1TmGrg-0005T5-1G; Fri, 21 Dec 2012 23:39:12 -0500 Original-Received: from acsinet21.oracle.com (acsinet21.oracle.com [141.146.126.237]) by aserp1040.oracle.com (Sentrion-MTA-4.2.2/Sentrion-MTA-4.2.2) with ESMTP id qBM4d8qO029511 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Sat, 22 Dec 2012 04:39:08 GMT Original-Received: from acsmt356.oracle.com (acsmt356.oracle.com [141.146.40.156]) by acsinet21.oracle.com (8.14.4+Sun/8.14.4) with ESMTP id qBM4d7Kv010828 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Sat, 22 Dec 2012 04:39:08 GMT Original-Received: from abhmt118.oracle.com (abhmt118.oracle.com [141.146.116.70]) by acsmt356.oracle.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id qBM4d8HK013531; Fri, 21 Dec 2012 22:39:08 -0600 Original-Received: from dradamslap1 (/71.202.147.44) by default (Oracle Beehive Gateway v4.0) with ESMTP ; Fri, 21 Dec 2012 20:39:07 -0800 X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11 In-Reply-To: <87ehiiu5x7.fsf@gnu.org> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.6157 Thread-Index: Ac3f86dFMeW0mySxT3ShmkOYOsZunAAALm0Q X-Source-IP: acsinet21.oracle.com [141.146.126.237] X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.4.x-2.6.x [generic] X-Received-From: 141.146.126.69 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:155748 Archived-At: > As for the keybinding, AFAICT that is becoming the > standard "full screen" key in many applications; So what? Many applications are not Emacs. And many applications do not use keys the same way. Emacs uses all kinds of keys in all kinds of ways. Repeatable keys like `f11' are scarce resources. Same for potential prefix keys. Cherish them - you might need them someday. Such virgin keys should not be squandered on whatever "many applications" might be using them for today or whatever might seem to be "becoming the standard". Not without other, better reasons. In 1955, coonskin caps were becoming the standard for 5-year olds. They had so much fad power that they bought Walt his dreamt-of Disneyland. Where is that standard today? Becoming the standard, indeed. > since we don't use it for anything else, Irrelevant. We can and we might use it for something else someday. Something better. Think of the future and leave room for it; leave its way open. Don't jump at the first offer to swap your jewels for something standard. Emacs can be better than standard; it has always been so. > and it doesn't conflict with the existing Emacs user interface, The existing Emacs interface is a snapshot, a flash in the river. It is Emacs the river that deserves more care and respect, not some momentary flash. > it is good to follow the convention. Stuff & nonsense. It is good to look out for Emacs - we are its guardians. It lives in a world of chaos and convention. Neither the chaos nor any convention has special pull, nor should it have. It is good to follow a convention when it is also good for Emacs, for other reasons. Richard chanted that mantra a thousand times. It is not about following for following's sake. That is as true for art & technique as it is for politics. With your reasoning, Emacs would have cast all its keys in bronze back in the bronze age. And today we would have no useful prefix keys, no handy repeatable keys, no mnemonic keys, no crazy key combinations. No keyboard magic or melody. Emacs would today be as standard as moth-eaten coonskin caps left over from Walt's first gold-pan marketing flash. It's about the long haul, not snatching up everything that is not nailed down and that we do not yet "use for anything else". "Not yet used for anything else!" Echoes of wilderness clearers - settlers and their standard-bearers. The keyboard is not a new land to be grabbed and quickly parceled out. It's not about staking claims. Emacs can do without an `f11' "full-screen" toggle, thank you very much. Sheesh. If Emacs ever gets the "true full screen mode" command you seek, users can bind it to `f11' or whatever else they like. Emacs need not stoop to that in the name of standardization.