From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: ams@gnu.org (Alfred M. Szmidt) Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Opening Up More Keymaps Re: Standardizing more key bindings? Date: Sun, 04 Oct 2020 13:00:20 -0400 Message-ID: References: <24436.53239.437810.270641@retriever.mtv.corp.google.com> <24436.58187.698211.262192@retriever.mtv.corp.google.com> <83362yisgn.fsf@gnu.org> <83y2kpf74o.fsf@gnu.org> Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="35614"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" Cc: rms@gnu.org, raman@google.com, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca, dgutov@yandex.ru, eliz@gnu.org, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: thibaut.verron@gmail.com Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Sun Oct 04 19:02:22 2020 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 1kP7Ov-00099r-Ir for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Sun, 04 Oct 2020 19:02:21 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:52294 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1kP7Ou-0002tI-IR for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Sun, 04 Oct 2020 13:02:20 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:35876) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1kP7NC-0001nS-VH for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 04 Oct 2020 13:00:34 -0400 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]:43613) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1kP7NC-00016K-Fa; Sun, 04 Oct 2020 13:00:34 -0400 Original-Received: from ams by fencepost.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1kP7My-0004kh-Rm; Sun, 04 Oct 2020 13:00:23 -0400 In-reply-to: (message from Thibaut Verron on Sun, 4 Oct 2020 18:24:55 +0200) 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:257038 Archived-At: The exact same arguments could apply to C-c being "replaced" by C-x C-c. There is a big difference in that C-c is already used by Emacs for other things, one is for users, and the second is for local keybindings in modes. Changing that would break quite a bit of things. I meant when C-c was chosen, I wasn't suggesting to change things now. I suspect that C-c was choosen long before GNU Emacs. But if C-x C-c for C-c was never too confusing, C-x C-z for C-z should be fine too. That makes no sense to me, C-x C-c and C-c have nothing in common, one kills Emacs by asking the user the other is used by other modes and users. C-c (SIGINT) in Unix has a entierly different behaviour than all of those... In any case, C-z can display a message guiding the user to the proper key sequence. And one could argue that C-c could show such a message too(without breaking anything). C-c doesn't interrupt Emacs; so having it show a message would be missleading to the user.