From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: "Drew Adams" Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: RE: Binding F11 and F12 to buffer-switching and file-saving bydefault Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2007 08:51:27 -0800 Message-ID: References: NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1170262440 24270 80.91.229.12 (31 Jan 2007 16:54:00 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2007 16:54:00 +0000 (UTC) To: Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Wed Jan 31 17:53:45 2007 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1HCIhv-0005N5-8h for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 31 Jan 2007 17:53:15 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HCIhu-0004kN-Sb for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 31 Jan 2007 11:53:14 -0500 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1HCIhi-0004k0-4d for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 31 Jan 2007 11:53:02 -0500 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1HCIhe-0004jo-Kx for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 31 Jan 2007 11:53:00 -0500 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HCIhe-0004jl-Di for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 31 Jan 2007 11:52:58 -0500 Original-Received: from rgminet01.oracle.com ([148.87.113.118]) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS-1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA:32) (Exim 4.52) id 1HCIhd-0005Kf-NT for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 31 Jan 2007 11:52:57 -0500 Original-Received: from rgmgw1.us.oracle.com (rgmgw1.us.oracle.com [138.1.186.110]) by rgminet01.oracle.com (Switch-3.2.4/Switch-3.1.6) with ESMTP id l0VGqsxO013863 for ; Wed, 31 Jan 2007 09:52:54 -0700 Original-Received: from rcsmt251.oracle.com (rcsmt251.oracle.com [148.87.90.196]) by rgmgw1.us.oracle.com (Switch-3.2.4/Switch-3.1.7) with ESMTP id l0VGqrUi025905 for ; Wed, 31 Jan 2007 09:52:53 -0700 Original-Received: from dhcp-4op11-4op12-west-130-35-178-179.us.oracle.com by rcsmt250.oracle.com with ESMTP id 2410878231170262287; Wed, 31 Jan 2007 09:51:27 -0700 X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.6604 (9.0.2911.0) In-reply-to: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3028 Importance: Normal X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAQAAAAI= X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAQAAAAI= X-Whitelist: TRUE X-Whitelist: TRUE X-detected-kernel: Linux 2.4-2.6 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:65700 Archived-At: > > Multiplying bindings for common commands adds confusion IMHO. > > Hmm. Perhaps that is true. (To the rest of you: Do you agree?) FWIW, I do. And it does more than add confusion: it raises a shaggy mane against Occam's Razor. I also disagree with those who feel that it's a good idea for Emacs to bind lots of keys, such as function keys, by default, giving as the sole rationale ("Why not?") that users can always override them. I disagree with the sentiment that unbound keys are virgin territory that is secretly yearning to be ravished, paradise pleading inwardly to be paved. Why? Binding keys by default just because they can be bound reduces unnecessarily the possibilities for third-party libraries (i.e. those not included in Emacs). It's generally considered good etiquette for a library not to trample on standard Emacs bindings, when that can be avoided. If Emacs binds everything, then what's left for other libraries? IOW, it's not just user customizations that might need to bind keys for particular uses, but also other libraries. And, if there is no distinction made among standard bindings (feel free to modify these, please don't modify those if you can avoid it, etc.), then libraries will end up overriding bindings in no special order, and that means overriding some that perhaps we wouldn't want overridden. If there are some keys that are not bound by default (and not reserved for users, by convention), then a third-party library will feel free to bind them. If there are no such keys, or few, then we probably should classify the standard bindings somehow, to give other libraries guidelines about which to trample in priority. > But M-x compile and M-x recompile have no default binding. As someone else said, one person's gotta-have-a-quick-key command is another's never-use-that command. Emacs developers have always weighed considerations of common usage. They need to decide how important it is to most users to bind such a command by default. Just because some key has not yet been bound by default is not a sufficient reason to bind it to something in vanilla Emacs. Leave a few herbs untrimmed. My own preference is that the function keys be left unbound by default, except where there might be well-established conventions outside Emacs - for example, for f1. > Yes, but as Stefan mentions in his reply to this message, we > should at least bind F11 and F12 to *something*. That's precisely the argument I don't buy: `If it's not yet bound, that's a good enough reason to give it a default binding.' No; some other justification should be given, IMO. (leave-no-key-unbound manifest-destiny seen-one-redwood-you've-seen-em-all . more-of-the-same)