From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail
From: Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org>
Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel
Subject: Re: Customizing key bindings
Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2002 23:05:21 -0400
Sender: emacs-devel-admin@gnu.org
Message-ID: <E17oxof-0008OY-00@fencepost.gnu.org>
References: <20020903130247.GA6318@gnu.org> <rjheh7rxgn.fsf@zuse.dina.kvl.dk>
	<20020903173120.GA29981@gnu.org> <jesn0qzxds.fsf@sykes.suse.de>
	<m17mN16-000IeBC@localhost> <rj3csqoxkz.fsf@zuse.dina.kvl.dk>
	<87ptvttnyo.fsf@emacswiki.org> <rj8z2ghhcx.fsf@zuse.dina.kvl.dk>
	<200209061736.g86HaDi00352@rum.cs.yale.edu>
	<874rd1ki2s.fsf_-_@emacswiki.org> <20020907234343.GC26845@gnu.org>
	<rj65xf4mgw.fsf@zuse.dina.kvl.dk>
	<buosn0j8qps.fsf@mcspd15.ucom.lsi.nec.co.jp>
	<E17oY2K-0005yX-00@fencepost.gnu.org> <87k7ltiv7c.fsf@emacswiki.org>
Reply-To: rms@gnu.org
NNTP-Posting-Host: localhost.gmane.org
X-Trace: main.gmane.org 1031713810 12303 127.0.0.1 (11 Sep 2002 03:10:10 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: usenet@main.gmane.org
NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2002 03:10:10 +0000 (UTC)
Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org
Return-path: <emacs-devel-admin@gnu.org>
Original-Received: from quimby.gnus.org ([80.91.224.244])
	by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian))
	id 17oxtH-0003CF-00
	for <emacs-devel@main.gmane.org>; Wed, 11 Sep 2002 05:10:07 +0200
Original-Received: from monty-python.gnu.org ([199.232.76.173])
	by quimby.gnus.org with esmtp (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian))
	id 17oyTz-0006H9-00
	for <emacs-devel@quimby.gnus.org>; Wed, 11 Sep 2002 05:48:04 +0200
Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=monty-python.gnu.org)
	by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.10)
	id 17oxtO-0007VR-00; Tue, 10 Sep 2002 23:10:14 -0400
Original-Received: from list by monty-python.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.10)
	id 17oxoj-00073z-00
	for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 10 Sep 2002 23:05:25 -0400
Original-Received: from mail by monty-python.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.10)
	id 17oxog-00073R-00
	for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 10 Sep 2002 23:05:24 -0400
Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([199.232.76.164])
	by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.10)
	id 17oxog-00073L-00
	for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 10 Sep 2002 23:05:22 -0400
Original-Received: from rms by fencepost.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.10)
	id 17oxof-0008OY-00; Tue, 10 Sep 2002 23:05:21 -0400
Original-To: alex@emacswiki.org
In-reply-to: <87k7ltiv7c.fsf@emacswiki.org> (message from Alex Schroeder on
	Tue, 10 Sep 2002 19:57:27 +0200)
Errors-To: emacs-devel-admin@gnu.org
X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.11
Precedence: bulk
List-Help: <mailto:emacs-devel-request@gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Post: <mailto:emacs-devel@gnu.org>
List-Subscribe: <http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-devel>,
	<mailto:emacs-devel-request@gnu.org?subject=subscribe>
List-Id: Emacs development discussions. <emacs-devel.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-devel>,
	<mailto:emacs-devel-request@gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://mail.gnu.org/pipermail/emacs-devel/>
Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:7837
X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.devel:7837

      Now, if #2 had been difficult to do,
    then we would have returned to #1.  But #2 was rather easy to do.
    This is why I see no reason to do #1 at the moment.

It seems that that #1 gives a cleaner behavior than #2.

You're arguing that it won't matter in practice.  Perhaps that is
true.