From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: John Yates Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Keybinding styles (was: [External] : Re: Gitlab Migration) Date: Tue, 7 Sep 2021 08:02:03 -0400 Message-ID: References: <87lf4dnk0z.fsf@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="17081"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" Cc: Tim Cross , Stefan Monnier , Emacs developers To: Richard Stallman Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Tue Sep 07 14:04:26 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 1mNZpy-0004A8-BU for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Tue, 07 Sep 2021 14:04:26 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:53344 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1mNZpw-0008KJ-Nz for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Tue, 07 Sep 2021 08:04:24 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:37460) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1mNZnx-0007ME-8I for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 07 Sep 2021 08:02:21 -0400 Original-Received: from mail-ej1-f53.google.com ([209.85.218.53]:40958) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1mNZnv-0004e1-MG; Tue, 07 Sep 2021 08:02:21 -0400 Original-Received: by mail-ej1-f53.google.com with SMTP id lc21so19142568ejc.7; Tue, 07 Sep 2021 05:02:17 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=m9z5O+aQmDs5WpAqEZr0PqemvFlrcDYZJjKRpv1DtaA=; b=rx1W0Wz5crP/SrAZgrAIgMChM+h744fAeJYUC2tkJDL5AplzKmr2lNL9m//MPrEew7 RI0uBvBSK42GoOQkNLx4A005Xr8Ju5p/ZZgx4WzaDSrYb3Q9AexhOiEWekf1CKs4kbFj 1M0yWcsz8GZA3clPsSJaYjlmhXOl0YqEwEHhqk8E7Ivm646F2OKDljF9Dc1I7V2KyuPh UzBz6idPvltLefHr6GBWwHfAU4uoF31zBQsrBBPoe+7mJp1H4SkOJ2WYNoR6SawJH1g/ YJA5fh9eoEy/U2+rPmkxixJqv5laWz/e0Fn2PTFOjMV8j6ufkOqNQ4b+kx62B4FzTn5N A8HQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531n/rW289B7GsJGgQPuRaiGOUFn7NY+qSt22pWrkpEPTz2ZE8wr CnBoBNeBwyoZKyAfTTDc/Z3P9YnIs2723qtPJr0KvKQ2z88= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxMCZ/vdeDRtTKyZgXWlS8iQPDn9Qt30TpjcA3rIuKBfwRoYagm2E1ka2zqmAycu/2TDEoAKBNc7PGUUiip9hY= X-Received: by 2002:a17:906:9452:: with SMTP id z18mr1436347ejx.25.1631016135592; Tue, 07 Sep 2021 05:02:15 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: Received-SPF: pass client-ip=209.85.218.53; envelope-from=john.yates.sheets@gmail.com; helo=mail-ej1-f53.google.com X-Spam_score_int: -13 X-Spam_score: -1.4 X-Spam_bar: - X-Spam_report: (-1.4 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.249, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001 autolearn=no 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:274227 Archived-At: On Mon, Sep 6, 2021 at 11:16 PM Richard Stallman wrote: > > > As a first step towards Stefan's wish, might I suggest that we > > consider what it would take to move to a world in which other > > binding schemes are considered fully equal peers of our current > > default bindings? > > If "fully equal peers" means that we give them as much support to each > of them as we do to the Emacs key bindings, we shouldn't. It would be > an enormous amount of work, and not worth it. We won't urge people to > make a version of the Emacs Manual that uses a different set of key > bindings, nor to update it for each Emacs version. > > It's reasonable to support selecting other sets of key bindings, > but the implementing them and supporting them will have to be up > to whoever likes each one. I did not suggest that we do any work specifically to support any specific alternative set of key bindings. What I attempted to suggest is trying to understand the experience of someone adopting Emacs from the outset with evil-mode or some other alternative set of key bindings enabled. To what extent can that user be made to feel other than a second class member of our community? Can the user experience when perusing documentation be either in terms of neutral function names or, when key bindings must be mentioned, then in terms of that user's elected bindings? The implication was, until we accept at a cultural level, that other sets of bindings should not be disadvantaged, we are unlikely to make progress toward Stefan's stated wish: > I keep wishing someone came up with a clever way for modes to specify > their key-bindings in such a way that Emacs can automatically derive from > it the keys to use "normally" as well as the keys to use in Evil or the > keys to use in god-mode, or the keys to use in this hypothetical new > `really-cua-mode`, ... > So as to finally address this long-term maintenance challenge. /john