In reply to Drew's email that seems to have started by mistake in a new
thread

> And I'm wondering why we need to provide such "shortcuts".  It is
> *trivial* for anyone to bind keys to insert any chars one uses often.
> I don't see how we're doing anyone any favors by this.
>
> What's so special about any particular set of Unicode chars that we
> should bother to offer a predefined set of bindings for them (even if
> turning on that set is optional)?  Now we're even down to looking to
> bind ≫ or »?  How silly is that?  (Well, I'm sure those chars are
> very useful for some people - but those who need 'em can bind 'em.)
>
> Where's the beef?

As I mentioned in the first email, I can easily bind those to what I want.

I was motivated to email about this because I found the binding "_<" for ≤
a bit unnatural. In all the coding languages I used, ≤ was always
represented as "<=" and so thought that that binding would make more sense.

Then I realized that "<" was already taken for the « and so we could not
have the "<=" binding.

And then the thread evolved as you see.

As Stefan mentioned, the "<" binding was added at the time when probably
the other unicode characters were probably not popular.

So this was just a little gesture to "upgrade" the out-of-box bindings for
"C-x 8" since we are already setting a few default bindings for some
unicode characters.

I am fine with this discussion ending here and I will go back to using a
little hydra with a bunch of unicode chars I use frequently.


--
Kaushal Modi

On Mon, May 11, 2015 at 6:13 PM, Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca>
wrote:

> > I disagree.  I use « and » from time to time, and I /never/ wanted to
> > use ≪ or ≫.
>
> FWIW I'm in the same situation.
>
>
>         Stefan
>