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: Binding M-n and M-p to forward-paragraph and backward-paragraphrespectively Date: Sat, 9 Apr 2011 08:24:33 -0700 Message-ID: References: NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1302362688 29710 80.91.229.12 (9 Apr 2011 15:24:48 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 9 Apr 2011 15:24:48 +0000 (UTC) To: "'chad'" , "'Emacs-Devel devel'" Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sat Apr 09 17:24:44 2011 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 1Q8a1k-0007hF-1K for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sat, 09 Apr 2011 17:24:44 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:57633 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Q8a1j-0008QQ-IH for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sat, 09 Apr 2011 11:24:43 -0400 Original-Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=60651 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Q8a1f-0008QJ-CZ for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 09 Apr 2011 11:24:40 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Q8a1e-0002V5-Ak for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 09 Apr 2011 11:24:39 -0400 Original-Received: from rcsinet10.oracle.com ([148.87.113.121]:44192) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Q8a1e-0002Ud-4P for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 09 Apr 2011 11:24:38 -0400 Original-Received: from acsinet15.oracle.com (acsinet15.oracle.com [141.146.126.227]) by rcsinet10.oracle.com (Switch-3.4.2/Switch-3.4.2) with ESMTP id p39FOY2V021246 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Sat, 9 Apr 2011 15:24:36 GMT Original-Received: from acsmt358.oracle.com (acsmt358.oracle.com [141.146.40.158]) by acsinet15.oracle.com (Switch-3.4.2/Switch-3.4.1) with ESMTP id p39FOX7b022524 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Sat, 9 Apr 2011 15:24:34 GMT Original-Received: from abhmt002.oracle.com (abhmt002.oracle.com [141.146.116.11]) by acsmt358.oracle.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id p39FOWu1029637; Sat, 9 Apr 2011 10:24:33 -0500 Original-Received: from dradamslap1 (/10.159.37.104) by default (Oracle Beehive Gateway v4.0) with ESMTP ; Sat, 09 Apr 2011 08:24:32 -0700 X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11 In-Reply-To: Thread-Index: Acv2bDgz0sEWg1kBSBCLIPtOS/ArMwAW5gFg X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.5994 X-Source-IP: acsmt358.oracle.com [141.146.40.158] X-Auth-Type: Internal IP X-CT-RefId: str=0001.0A020201.4DA07A32.00A0:SCFSTAT5015188,ss=1,fgs=0 X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 3) X-Received-From: 148.87.113.121 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:138329 Archived-At: > the idea that we shouldn't add new bindings because then > someone in the future might think that those bindings are > somehow `special' - and that we might want them to think > otherwise - is a rather extreme combination of straw-man and > absurdity. It is neither straw man nor absurdity. And it is not just an idea. The last go-round about binding some (function) key by default clearly demonstrated this: The discussion had not even finished, and no decision had yet been reached, before some were sending in posts that indicated that they understood that the key was _reserved_ and should not be changed by users or 3rd-party libraries. IOW, it's just a _fact_. Some people respect authority with such a strong knee-jerk reflex that they just don't get that they and others are free to bind keys as they like (with a few exceptions, per a documented convention). And then there is the force of habit that becomes de facto convention: A default binding becomes respected as something that should probably not be changed (e.g. by a library) just because so many people are already used to it. It's understandable that people begin to feel that way, even if the doc makes it clear that the keys in question are not reserved. And 3rd-party library authors thus tend to avoid any such keys that are heavily used. Binding a key by default is not a no-cost operation in terms of changing habits and expectations. To get a new default binding accepted here, some argue that a default binding is just a _default_ and has no force beyond that - which is true in theory. They (should) know full well, however, that in practice things are not so simple.