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: Concern about new binding. Date: Fri, 5 Feb 2021 13:39:12 +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> <5588fb25805d486be704@heytings.org> <83pn1epxpd.fsf@gnu.org> <5588fb25800131ef8afa@heytings.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="1267"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" Cc: Eli Zaretskii , emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Gregory Heytings Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Fri Feb 05 13:43:28 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 1l80SO-0000Eh-1m for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Fri, 05 Feb 2021 13:43:28 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:52306 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1l80SN-0005D9-3d for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Fri, 05 Feb 2021 07:43:27 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:46102) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1l80OL-0003Nb-9v for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 05 Feb 2021 07:39:17 -0500 Original-Received: from mail-yb1-xb30.google.com ([2607:f8b0:4864:20::b30]:34069) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1l80OI-0005kc-7L; Fri, 05 Feb 2021 07:39:16 -0500 Original-Received: by mail-yb1-xb30.google.com with SMTP id j84so6619161ybg.1; Fri, 05 Feb 2021 04:39:13 -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=x0QtPESlo/3fC9Hn2q6HzZ5CG4t5odTKPLzDzDxzlpo=; b=ta2xcmhnSFw3a2FpU5CUkM7kWj2RsJGA+hHPLXJry7P94Y+hVjHEqmj6aEoCNZkGKc jWFH4p8FijvQdgNtofgcZOd5eR2u6s6UcDyKyivNwBehMU1Auh4oHhpZki5qP96paLC2 MFXAwvApWKpVTxQOQw1vBYZyI0uJEHwDg/vUH5XsnKOJF4P+rMA38TJvFLzjTKnRZ7SI H+T80l5M1Ah39AD9wmmCSFuMnK8B51lamOt1nyXpYTPnI4ZzfbCpi9Nf9up15ifPUdHn +1Y8an13emvoF/LOhs8wyXGGIqCu7OAbnRwBaqgoVex4s+Y4fo7n3WqcoQxVwuCQIGdB wlPg== 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=x0QtPESlo/3fC9Hn2q6HzZ5CG4t5odTKPLzDzDxzlpo=; b=ok0cqKxw3Vh2vyUKU63FnKsxALSIV+VTlDR0yd9mi/eDQoMY/vxz/hwshV2QrLiVPl vM8QapGv10Rg+jpWm2pC3f3RlDs/HOntOoccdoglrsfScEPw4oc61GhY2QVFNsln5bZ3 yuZKpFOPuT2xEek5bOkNPZYd2BxhkLnWGTCc2/UG7zH6a4j7lrGJdsjYAJa2lng5Lg5M v91cG35/wVE6UVkoEdC+6F/A06a2Z2MOkwUrTvVG9BXaw0a8sjIEjOBvhK+3ncaWpAJ+ nx7tFLORixyD7C3p8kEeTlDwYsbxQtVT+P1509nusG+PZzi2vwTdsNzaZmwawU/phSLW WBqQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533Gr2PxkSoy+JIZ8elEqPpd5+6TC71HbkPN2oO04vUn65FVtq3q FHyP5Djai2U/hVuR8rUl4JWA7ndRhhRMGh184Eg= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJykXzelSqk9OSZc0Vt07dAvHfApDhLjs5B1BzK6L3qGbW+bKbmkKvTu+3sOqr7D356eacqu1kkK4k2bLN2x2hU= X-Received: by 2002:a25:48c8:: with SMTP id v191mr5610799yba.311.1612528752668; Fri, 05 Feb 2021 04:39:12 -0800 (PST) Original-Received: by 2002:a05:7110:6187:b029:31:9798:b166 with HTTP; Fri, 5 Feb 2021 04:39:12 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <5588fb25800131ef8afa@heytings.org> Received-SPF: pass client-ip=2607:f8b0:4864:20::b30; envelope-from=thibaut.verron@gmail.com; helo=mail-yb1-xb30.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:263981 Archived-At: 2021-02-05 13:07 UTC+01:00, Gregory Heytings : > >>> A proposal to solve the current problem and future similar problems is >>> to free one of the keys, and to mention in `(elisp) Key Binding >>> Conventions' that it is, forever, reserved for external packages. >>> >>> This proposal has two forms: a weak and a strong one. The weak one >>> would only reserve the control key, the strong one would also reserve >>> the meta and control-meta keys. >>> >>> The candidate keys for that proposal are "z", "t" and "o". >> >> C-z, C-t, and C-o are already taken >> > > I know this; I said "to _free_ one of the keys". > >> >> C-t in particular is very useful and frequently-used (by me, FWIW), and >> also matches the default binding in Bash, GDB CLI, and elsewhere. A >> recent discussion demonstrated that at least for C-z enough people are >> against changing its binding, even though we have "C-x C-z" to do the >> same. >> > > Yes, it is unavoidable that some people will be against changing a > binding. I have no preference between the three proposed keys, and > anticipated that there would be more objections against using "t" for that > purpose. If we put "t" aside, there are still two other options: "z" and > "o". > >> >> These data points suggest that usurping these keys may not be easy, to >> say the least. >> > > The meaning of the proposal is that the benefit of such a single change > is, in the long term, largely superior to its loss in the short term. > >