From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Stefan Monnier Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: DEL vs Backspace Date: Sun, 25 Apr 2021 13:25:15 -0400 Message-ID: References: <838s7hxqkr.fsf@gnu.org> <1c2c69f9-f42e-45e2-ab0e-8506aa859f85@yandex.ru> <87sg3el36g.fsf@gnus.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="26378"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/28.0.50 (gnu/linux) Cc: Eli Zaretskii , Dmitry Gutov , Stefan Kangas , emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Lars Ingebrigtsen Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Sun Apr 25 19:26:28 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 1laiWa-0006mu-1S for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Sun, 25 Apr 2021 19:26:28 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:56910 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1laiWZ-00081B-5l for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Sun, 25 Apr 2021 13:26:27 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:37994) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1laiVX-0007Jp-72 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 25 Apr 2021 13:25:24 -0400 Original-Received: from mailscanner.iro.umontreal.ca ([132.204.25.50]:53613) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1laiVT-0003LY-8e; Sun, 25 Apr 2021 13:25:22 -0400 Original-Received: from pmg3.iro.umontreal.ca (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pmg3.iro.umontreal.ca (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 97045440910; Sun, 25 Apr 2021 13:25:17 -0400 (EDT) Original-Received: from mail01.iro.umontreal.ca (unknown [172.31.2.1]) by pmg3.iro.umontreal.ca (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 0B87E44084B; Sun, 25 Apr 2021 13:25:16 -0400 (EDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=iro.umontreal.ca; s=mail; t=1619371516; bh=1c790OJ8FzdpLnH1E1j3xlfetbTmRnP0EHp0cO6PFZw=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:References:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=b70DEVj1pZ2QsXRRH8OryYY/8LW3/xFX9uvmqUheF9F0uNOpCw45UaPMxVLZzpv+s fiwG+9vhK/qEZF19ZuDNLTvqixkdtjzjAWrc2mgBjy0uQwOo1fcf/5ij6FgIKODS1b 2db4y1IWz7mMDXpSEN/A5K8pQMakF0lgBC06V0Cr47NT+hsVdMm8LrWLfMqG6kkTYz 4d4ril65mvMjG8y+IbexTuE7QoKfqulkcel5gxXLnxozyOtlrhbtRLBqjz9PMQare0 hor7w2SWdT/KX6hE5MTrHbTvo10sbXeh0JLvjbC3FRzh6gE1D+aLT7IqkWhaLdwlRO aQOFp3WAmedMA== Original-Received: from alfajor (104-222-126-84.cpe.teksavvy.com [104.222.126.84]) by mail01.iro.umontreal.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id A8E98120351; Sun, 25 Apr 2021 13:25:15 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: <87sg3el36g.fsf@gnus.org> (Lars Ingebrigtsen's message of "Sun, 25 Apr 2021 18:49:43 +0200") Received-SPF: pass client-ip=132.204.25.50; envelope-from=monnier@iro.umontreal.ca; helo=mailscanner.iro.umontreal.ca X-Spam_score_int: -42 X-Spam_score: -4.3 X-Spam_bar: ---- X-Spam_report: (-4.3 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_HELO_NONE=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:268397 Archived-At: Lars Ingebrigtsen [2021-04-25 18:49:43] wrote: > Stefan Monnier writes: >> Maybe we should inverse this mapping. Similarly for RET-vs-return and >> TAB-vs-tab. [ And I forgot to mention ESC-vs-escape in the list. ] >> Another benefit in the long run would be to free C-i and C-m for the >> users to bind as they please in GUI frames. > > Sounds good to me. Note that beside the question of whether we want it or not, there's the question of how to do it without breaking (too much) existing code and use cases. Maybe we could start by adding a DEL => backspace remapping *without* removing the backspace => DEL remapping? Still, as modes start changing their keymaps to place bindings on `backspace` we'll end up with situations where a minor modes has a mapping for DEL and the major mode has a different mapping for `backspace` and they'll end up chosen based on the incidental "tty or GUI?" distinction rather than based on the minor modes bindings's precedence over major modes's. This said, such problems already exist since a fair number of modes mistakently bind commands to `tab` instead of TAB or to `return` instead of RET, leading to overriding minor-vs-major precedence rules. Stefan