From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: David Kastrup Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: A more modest proposal Date: Fri, 23 Jul 2010 09:13:17 +0200 Organization: Organization?!? Message-ID: <87mxti8ycy.fsf@lola.goethe.zz> References: <4C3B6A8A.80105@gmx.de> <87wrt0e81n.fsf@telefonica.net> <62E9699C07054418AB66F9C5FCB54E5C@us.oracle.com> <87sk3oe3la.fsf@telefonica.net> <1154D96E7D2F401D849266F359E44BB9@us.oracle.com> <87ocecdzou.fsf@telefonica.net> <2256C17F740A425884AD551DE7758056@us.oracle.com> <87fwzodqqm.fsf@telefonica.net> <5138CDF30B2D4B778F948015614DA7BC@us.oracle.com> <87iq4ijtdy.fsf@lola.goethe.zz> <87bpa7uu1e.fsf@kanis.fr> <877hkv2hco.fsf@catnip.gol.com> <87iq4e593w.fsf@kanis.fr> <87lj9ayp2f.fsf@stupidchicken.com> <4C493433.4010709@censorshipresearch.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1279869232 21523 80.91.229.12 (23 Jul 2010 07:13:52 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 23 Jul 2010 07:13:52 +0000 (UTC) To: emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Fri Jul 23 09:13:49 2010 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OcCS3-0008Ta-VT for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 23 Jul 2010 09:13:48 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:37199 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1OcCS2-00049Z-Pg for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 23 Jul 2010 03:13:46 -0400 Original-Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=45269 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1OcCRq-00048Y-HX for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 23 Jul 2010 03:13:38 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OcCRm-00029h-PC for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 23 Jul 2010 03:13:34 -0400 Original-Received: from lo.gmane.org ([80.91.229.12]:46125) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OcCRm-00029M-I0 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 23 Jul 2010 03:13:30 -0400 Original-Received: from list by lo.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OcCRj-0008Kl-1B for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 23 Jul 2010 09:13:27 +0200 Original-Received: from p508ecc46.dip.t-dialin.net ([80.142.204.70]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Fri, 23 Jul 2010 09:13:27 +0200 Original-Received: from dak by p508ecc46.dip.t-dialin.net with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Fri, 23 Jul 2010 09:13:27 +0200 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ Original-Lines: 23 Original-X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: p508ecc46.dip.t-dialin.net X-Face: 2FEFf>]>q>2iw=B6, xrUubRI>pR&Ml9=ao@P@i)L:\urd*t9M~y1^:+Y]'C0~{mAl`oQuAl \!3KEIp?*w`|bL5qr,H)LFO6Q=qx~iH4DN; i"; /yuIsqbLLCh/!U#X[S~(5eZ41to5f%E@'ELIi$t^ Vc\LWP@J5p^rst0+('>Er0=^1{]M9!p?&:\z]|;&=NP3AhB!B_bi^]Pfkw User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.0.50 (gnu/linux) Cancel-Lock: sha1:hxvQGowDogrBSRtwtWZBUcdsaSY= X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 3) X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:127672 Archived-At: Daniel Colascione writes: > On 7/17/10 10:51 AM, Chong Yidong wrote: > >> No, having CUA mode on by default is off the table. > > Agreed, but there are a few less disruptive ideas that are still worth > considering: Wasn't this supposed to be an unmoderate mailing list? Oh wait, I did not notice your mail address. Anyway, I believe that most of your proposals were on the table at one time, and they were canned for the time being because they would have involved separating the whole of CUA mode into functionally cleaner separated parts. And none of people totally for the whole of CUA mode or totally against the whole of it it could be interested in doing that work. -- David Kastrup