From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Juri Linkov Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Why change the advertised bindings of Isearch commands? Date: Sat, 28 Nov 2015 01:09:12 +0200 Organization: LINKOV.NET Message-ID: <87k2p3ghuv.fsf@mail.linkov.net> References: > <83k2p3sq71.fsf@gnu.org>> <6191c91b-e09a-4cf2-859d-7370e1300924@default> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1448666968 31465 80.91.229.3 (27 Nov 2015 23:29:28 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 27 Nov 2015 23:29:28 +0000 (UTC) Cc: Eli Zaretskii , emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Drew Adams Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sat Nov 28 00:29:17 2015 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 1a2SS4-0004rB-GQ for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sat, 28 Nov 2015 00:29:16 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:58908 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1a2SS2-0008Bt-4J for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 27 Nov 2015 18:29:14 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:41198) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1a2SRv-00088o-T1 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 27 Nov 2015 18:29:08 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1a2SRu-0007we-R5 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 27 Nov 2015 18:29:07 -0500 Original-Received: from sub3.mail.dreamhost.com ([69.163.253.7]:58100 helo=homiemail-a22.g.dreamhost.com) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1a2SRm-0007v8-Pl; Fri, 27 Nov 2015 18:28:58 -0500 Original-Received: from homiemail-a22.g.dreamhost.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by homiemail-a22.g.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D078E1A8069; Fri, 27 Nov 2015 15:28:56 -0800 (PST) Original-Received: from localhost.linkov.net (m212-53-115-218.cust.tele2.ee [212.53.115.218]) (Authenticated sender: jurta@jurta.org) by homiemail-a22.g.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id B6B8A1A8061; Fri, 27 Nov 2015 15:28:55 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <6191c91b-e09a-4cf2-859d-7370e1300924@default> (Drew Adams's message of "Fri, 27 Nov 2015 08:50:25 -0800 (PST)") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/25.1.50 (x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6.x X-Received-From: 69.163.253.7 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:195421 Archived-At: >> > Using M-c to exit and capitalize means removing it as a key >> > that does something useful _in_ Isearch. >> >> And evidently, the desire to remove it means we think its binding >> outside Isearch is more useful. > > We do? How and when did we decide that? > > What were the arguments pro and con - where can I find the > discussion? Did we poll the users, to get their take on this? You can find the discussion that you missed in the mail archive. >> > > What you are saying is that a user who spots a word to be >> > > capitalized during Isearch needs to do at least 2 things: >> > > exit Isearch with some key, then type M-c. >> > >> > Exactly as it has always been: `RET M-c'. >> >> The intent of the advertised bindings is to change that at some >> future point. > > Since when do we advertise bindings for that reason? Can you > point to a case where we've done that? An advertised binding > is typically used to ensure that the simplest or most flexible > binding gets advertised, instead of a more complex binding that > the tools would otherwise automatically report as "the" binding. > > At any rate, it's that intention to "change that at some future > point" that I haven't seen discussed or decided. > > And that I disagree with. But if it _has_ been discussed and > decided then I have no problem supporting the decision, even > if I disagree with it. I remember that the consensus was to reduce the number of Isearch keys that override their global bindings. >> > And not "at least 2 things". Exactly 2 things: exit & act. >> >> No, it's "at least 2 things". Because depending on how you exit >> Isearch you may need to move point first. > > Oh come on. Sure, you _could_ exit with a key that you bind > to a function that does whatever nutty thing you like, and > then have to move back where you were. This is 100% beside > the point (seems like arguing for the sake of arguing), since > there are other keys (e.g. RET) that do _not_ take you all > around Robinson's barn. > >> > So far, no reason for this change in defaults (for 3 keys) >> > was even given. AFAIK, it ain't broke; no need to fix it. >> >> That's a different issue. You asked why the advertised >> bindings were changed; you now have the answer, I hope. > > No, my question is why _should_ we change these bindings? > > Your answer is that they were changed because we decided to > change them. Sheesh. How about an argument to support the > change and the intention to remove these Isearch bindings? > How about polling the users? > >> > As I said, "different users care to have different keys >> > exit and act immediately". >> >> There are facilities to tailor the commands that exit >> Isearch, if the user doesn't like the defaults. > > Precisely. So why the need for this change? That's the > question (still unanswered). > >> > But let's hear some arguments in favor of the changes, >> > please. >> >> That's a separate discussion. > > No, that's exactly what this thread is about. I started > the thread, and that is what my question is: _Why_ should > we change these bindings? Reasons, please. Nobody changed these bindings yet, you can still use them.