From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Gregory Heytings Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Concern about new binding. Date: Thu, 04 Feb 2021 15:56:33 +0000 Message-ID: References: <87zh0mmr54.fsf@gmail.com> <87y2g5smya.fsf@gmail.com> <4FF55FBF-573D-4A70-B3FC-682CA25B7ECB@gnu.org> <83lfc53whk.fsf@gnu.org> <20210203180142.seu6o3i6u7jhkyrh@Ergus> <83eehx3to5.fsf@gnu.org> <20210203221628.xgvvxjvh56gyswba@Ergus> <20210204070033.pm4ido4hq7a6twif@Ergus> <83sg6brhyg.fsf@gnu.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=us-ascii Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="28952"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Eli Zaretskii Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Thu Feb 04 17:22:58 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 1l7hPF-0007Ri-Oi for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Thu, 04 Feb 2021 17:22:57 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:51110 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1l7hPE-0006v9-OH for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Thu, 04 Feb 2021 11:22:56 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:56834) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1l7gzn-0004z8-1N for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 04 Feb 2021 10:56:39 -0500 Original-Received: from heytings.org ([95.142.160.155]:36526) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1l7gzl-0001LH-0g; Thu, 04 Feb 2021 10:56:38 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=heytings.org; s=20210101; t=1612454194; bh=/2QLgVRsEcgQAGxbjYzJ/LCNS8SLeSzYyHT188pV/Fo=; h=Date:From:To:cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:Message-ID:References:From; b=t1vM2BMLW1W57gjS9A1wzubT3G14iqV4GgzxKqiq1kL1w83nWTwSQDmm8JZHap4Yu NgjroGUyjE8OWcEjnG2AFJMnOGnBCN1RkNzIvDU8wskTgobhV5WPx/SdHlQGt/UlHc RgONlH5MWwLr6TOADtqMPFgm8+ehifam/q3H7CWC8o0XPczWtsD4bGoJyVOpIsIh7I 0yTHm+SZEUBfucydZonhdhRH+MoVsSuZOjaUI0kAhaZA0oVOo/Umrq7IEb+Gj9GgcF zGTiPLlje8t2nEwpTF28ZOC8LYtVuv4jOoFwKRs3QFELvCcYJ3/HAbSdYSjF3+hQQe jGGlI9thUHaNg== In-Reply-To: <83sg6brhyg.fsf@gnu.org> Received-SPF: pass client-ip=95.142.160.155; envelope-from=gregory@heytings.org; helo=heytings.org X-Spam_score_int: -20 X-Spam_score: -2.1 X-Spam_bar: -- X-Spam_report: (-2.1 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001 autolearn=ham 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:263880 Archived-At: >>> I guess there is nothing to make a final decision about unless someone >>> threatens with a patch. Please do that more. :-) >> >> Could we revert the previous one then?? That's the first part of my >> question. > > I'd prefer to find a binding to which people could agree, because that > would leave fewer people unhappy. The two candidates proposed till now > are "C-x G" and "C-x M-u". > You forgot the proposal to which the mail you are replying to explicitly refers. So I'll copy it here again: it is to make "C-x g" a keymap for buffer-related operations, with in particular "C-x g r" bound to revert-buffer: C-x g c = clone-buffer C-x g d = diff-buffers C-x g f = fit-frame-to-buffer C-x g h = hexl-mode C-x g i = insert-buffer C-x g l = font-lock-mode C-x g n = rename-buffer C-x g r = revert-buffer C-x g R = revert-buffer-with-fine-grain C-x g t = toggle-truncate-lines ... BTW, Richard replied to the "C-x G" proposal: "Letters following C-x are not case-sensitive. That is a systematic rule. That rule is not sacred; for a good enough reason, we could break it. But this is not an important reason; it is not sufficient reason to break a rule."