From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Thibaut Verron Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: [External] : Re: Concern about new binding. Date: Fri, 5 Feb 2021 12:35:40 +0100 Message-ID: References: <87zh0mmr54.fsf@gmail.com> <87y2g5smya.fsf@gmail.com> <4FF55FBF-573D-4A70-B3FC-682CA25B7ECB@gnu.org> <83lfc53whk.fsf@gnu.org> <20210203180142.seu6o3i6u7jhkyrh@Ergus> <83eehx3to5.fsf@gnu.org> <20210203221628.xgvvxjvh56gyswba@Ergus> <20210204070033.pm4ido4hq7a6twif@Ergus> <83sg6brhyg.fsf@gnu.org> <83v9b7orny.fsf@gnu.org> <83r1lupxyb.fsf@gnu.org> Reply-To: thibaut.verron@gmail.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="32523"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" Cc: rms@gnu.org, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Eli Zaretskii Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Fri Feb 05 12:38:07 2021 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([209.51.188.17]) by ciao.gmane.io with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1l7zR9-0008Lz-6a for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Fri, 05 Feb 2021 12:38:07 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:34282 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1l7zR8-00060H-90 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Fri, 05 Feb 2021 06:38:06 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:33206) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1l7zOq-0003Y2-G9 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 05 Feb 2021 06:35:44 -0500 Original-Received: from mail-yb1-xb2d.google.com ([2607:f8b0:4864:20::b2d]:45137) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1l7zOo-0001w7-Oa; Fri, 05 Feb 2021 06:35:44 -0500 Original-Received: by mail-yb1-xb2d.google.com with SMTP id y4so6378244ybk.12; Fri, 05 Feb 2021 03:35:41 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:reply-to:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id :subject:to:cc; bh=yOIY7bAtZes6gZAfBQnOlJ5OZln8U8Dl1VTJoKpTCaM=; b=lC3ZJqXmxyg/3t0Iwp4GrtG+tI39qCDwlYBErtu09YbxjzAoqYsC9/WhsOdlTTZzlU PwY+RQzx8u1kYtpGL/pIwrLeeFZ4HOa/vAoDEQpkRLwQkaAnh46Zu6UjZTi5yrbKTJqa cplog5yF0/JUCPnz1/As8bndcUxovouYQOEmrgvQYDN8AY9oAvbns5KWhU4Pm7wlqmeM rqrmLIXbucEOfkUZnx9qkiwJmZtd3oyEFVwxyG9YcelsLYkQpzckOx4OJ8PKTs0UQbAJ 4wue8TWaXri9PkcWS+ukG5DROiwHYNDuB+wuDtoifvUv13++AbzR+b9upr/qty9/Dc+T xwZA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:reply-to:in-reply-to:references :from:date:message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=yOIY7bAtZes6gZAfBQnOlJ5OZln8U8Dl1VTJoKpTCaM=; b=ZOtml2z8PtBrltj3VyzlPxEwKzbEUuOvMiZ6XChybQbYWGNLLrFqnD7wTTFdH915S6 TeSU2WAPdhMUad/VfX7Jx/vwri3/A450s9Yw0aIySWxrj0LfCMGw7mDBc2FCMLNOMPbr 3ihQ/+spXine2q15LymPcHXklIqkzMwuqFxeNUXUk1TbilPBjAAvsTzNJtQm+pguv7M2 VwkqD1+p5hylV0wNjLa4y7++cySCumf//hWKkWi9SKJI9SKUbWtgXaojAJ2/gUJw0CeA Ti0mg9066GJNgWYjcgQaAQ2DSwOzdFvE5fHk07plu8bOQYKgpPwd1uaTjZhYrI2aZvhr VbCw== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530TExEZ5bQlkQ34C7Tx3XAq57mFTldBg6W4ZfDciggWXgV3oefJ 4pGE0/CZkPagi0xUndjMAbGCtZQGEhI+HW+vkwkP/qlsTII= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxLMuC0WOrB/x41F6xY+XN1IrlxLOtI5nEfIPMLPdRtu2z7h5bwSRiaay7+3aWr6YsppizKbmfUY1IAzwhIJA8= X-Received: by 2002:a25:2f41:: with SMTP id v62mr5988662ybv.473.1612524940904; Fri, 05 Feb 2021 03:35:40 -0800 (PST) Original-Received: by 2002:a05:7110:6187:b029:31:9798:b166 with HTTP; Fri, 5 Feb 2021 03:35:40 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <83r1lupxyb.fsf@gnu.org> Received-SPF: pass client-ip=2607:f8b0:4864:20::b2d; envelope-from=thibaut.verron@gmail.com; helo=mail-yb1-xb2d.google.com X-Spam_score_int: -20 X-Spam_score: -2.1 X-Spam_bar: -- X-Spam_report: (-2.1 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23 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-mx.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: "Emacs-devel" Xref: news.gmane.io gmane.emacs.devel:263974 Archived-At: 2021-02-05 12:15 UTC+01:00, Eli Zaretskii : >> From: Thibaut Verron >> Date: Fri, 5 Feb 2021 10:11:28 +0100 >> Cc: rms@gnu.org, emacs-devel@gnu.org >> >> Without going as far as making a formal poll, I don't think it's >> unreasonable to be as careful for binding a new key as we are for >> rebinding an existing key. > > What makes you think we aren't that careful? That the decision so far > was to add that new binding doesn't mean the potential downsides > weren't considered. (Tongue-in-cheek) Because usually, when such downsides are brought up, the answer is status quo. (Seriously) Because I would expect that counter-arguments would have been ready and posted already. > >> Besides, technical arguments were also brought forward: > > I have nothing against technical objections, and said or did nothing > to prevent the technical discussions, including in this very thread. I know. My unclear point was that those technical arguments directly lead to the question: do we really need a revert-buffer binding now, after living for so long without one. The observation that it doesn't appear to be a very requested feature is useful to answer it. I don't think we need rigorous polling to make that statement. >> As far as I can tell, the suggestion of a poll was only metaphorical, > > Then I guess I have trouble understanding written English, because to > me the demand to take a poll sounded very much as an explicit and > concrete one. Sorry. English is not my first language, and regardless I don't want to overreach in interpreting other's answers.