Re: Emacs-diffs Digest, Vol 50, Issue 7

Re: Emacs-diffs Digest, Vol 50, Issue 7

[Eli Zaretskii]

IMO this change in the manual of the text I wrote is ridiculous:

> --- msdog.texi	27 Dec 2006 12:49:00 -0000	1.64
> +++ msdog.texi	2 Jan 2007 21:00:44 -0000	1.65
> @@ -334,11 +334,14 @@
>  keyboard input in Emacs.
>  
>  @cindex MS-Windows keyboard shortcuts
> -  Many key combinations (known as ``keyboard shortcuts'') that are in
> -widespread use in MS-Windows programs are taken by various Emacs
> -features.  Examples include @kbd{C-C}, @kbd{C-X}, @kbd{C-Z},
> -@kbd{C-A}, and @kbd{W-SPC}.  You can get some of them back by turning
> -on CUA Mode (@pxref{CUA Bindings}).
> +  Many key combinations (known as ``keyboard shortcuts'') that have
> +conventional uses in MS-Windows programs conflict with traditional
> +Emacs commands.  This conflict arose because the designers of Windows
> +did not concern themselves with how Emacs used these characters.
> +Examples include @kbd{C-c}, @kbd{C-x}, @kbd{C-z}, @kbd{C-a}, and
> +@kbd{W-@key{SPC}}.  You can redefine some of them with meanings more
> +like the MS-Windows meanings by enabling CUA Mode (@pxref{CUA
> +Bindings}).

The original text was completely neutral, whereas the new one is so
grotesque that it's at best suitable for anti.texi, and at worst is an
insult to the reader's intelligence.

To add insult to injury, the ChangeLog entry accuses me of being
lopsided towards Windows:

	* msdog.texi (Windows Keyboard): Explain that Windows was incompatible
	with Emacs, not vice versa.

Such incidents make me wonder why I still spend almost all my free
time working on Emacs, if what I get in return is this kind of
rudeness.

Re: Emacs-diffs Digest, Vol 50, Issue 7

[Juanma Barranquero]

On 1/2/07, Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> wrote:

> Such incidents make me wonder why I still spend almost all my free
> time working on Emacs, if what I get in return is this kind of
> rudeness.

Personal integrity and principles?
Because Emacs is worth it?
Because we need you?

                    /L/e/k/t/u

Re: Emacs-diffs Digest, Vol 50, Issue 7

[Lennart Borgman (gmail)]

Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> IMO this change in the manual of the text I wrote is ridiculous:
>
>   
>> --- msdog.texi	27 Dec 2006 12:49:00 -0000	1.64
>> +++ msdog.texi	2 Jan 2007 21:00:44 -0000	1.65
>> @@ -334,11 +334,14 @@
>>  keyboard input in Emacs.
>>  
>>  @cindex MS-Windows keyboard shortcuts
>> -  Many key combinations (known as ``keyboard shortcuts'') that are in
>> -widespread use in MS-Windows programs are taken by various Emacs
>> -features.  Examples include @kbd{C-C}, @kbd{C-X}, @kbd{C-Z},
>> -@kbd{C-A}, and @kbd{W-SPC}.  You can get some of them back by turning
>> -on CUA Mode (@pxref{CUA Bindings}).
>> +  Many key combinations (known as ``keyboard shortcuts'') that have
>> +conventional uses in MS-Windows programs conflict with traditional
>> +Emacs commands.  This conflict arose because the designers of Windows
>> +did not concern themselves with how Emacs used these characters.
>> +Examples include @kbd{C-c}, @kbd{C-x}, @kbd{C-z}, @kbd{C-a}, and
>> +@kbd{W-@key{SPC}}.  You can redefine some of them with meanings more
>> +like the MS-Windows meanings by enabling CUA Mode (@pxref{CUA
>> +Bindings}).
>>     
>
> The original text was completely neutral, whereas the new one is so
> grotesque that it's at best suitable for anti.texi, and at worst is an
> insult to the reader's intelligence.
>
> To add insult to injury, the ChangeLog entry accuses me of being
> lopsided towards Windows:
>
> 	* msdog.texi (Windows Keyboard): Explain that Windows was incompatible
> 	with Emacs, not vice versa.
>
> Such incidents make me wonder why I still spend almost all my free
> time working on Emacs, if what I get in return is this kind of
> rudeness.
>   

It is a joke of course, but one of those jokes that may be dividing, not 
uniting.  A good example IMHO of why it is better to joke about oneself 
than about others.

I could write in length about this, but just want to make a short note. 
The kind of thinking that is behind this joke tends to surface when a 
group is in a stressed position. (I believe it is rather similar to the 
stress that came up when I pointed to what I think are some problems on 
the w32 side.)

There is a press now to fix the errors and get a release done. I think 
everyone agrees on that though we may disagree about details regarding 
what bugs to fix and so on.
Could we please just accept that there is some stress now and that some 
bad things happens then?

I would be glad if those changes to msdogs.texi were changed back to 
something more neutral. Let us avoid to write down our group thinking in 
the manual.

Re: Emacs-diffs Digest, Vol 50, Issue 7

[Nick Roberts]

 > The original text was completely neutral, whereas the new one is so
 > grotesque that it's at best suitable for anti.texi, and at worst is an
 > insult to the reader's intelligence.

Yes, I agree.  I think we should spend our energy improving free software, not
vilifying Microsoft.

-- 
Nick                                           http://www.inet.net.nz/~nickrob

Re: Emacs-diffs Digest, Vol 50, Issue 7

[Kim F. Storm]

Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> writes:

> IMO this change in the manual of the text I wrote is ridiculous:

I agree.

>> +@kbd{W-@key{SPC}}.  You can redefine some of them with meanings more
>> +like the MS-Windows meanings by enabling CUA Mode (@pxref{CUA
>> +Bindings}).

"more like" ?  

For all practical purposes, there's no difference, so the new text is
much worse in this respect too!


> To add insult to injury, the ChangeLog entry accuses me of being
> lopsided towards Windows:

The change is attributed to RMS, so I don't see that it accuses
_you_ of anything.

> Such incidents make me wonder why I still spend almost all my free
> time working on Emacs, if what I get in return is this kind of
> rudeness.

I wonder sometimes too -- but that's because of the obvious inability
from our great leader to realize that there is no such thing as
bug-free software, not even Emacs.

-- 
Kim F. Storm <storm@cua.dk> http://www.cua.dk

Re: Emacs-diffs Digest, Vol 50, Issue 7

[Jason Rumney]

Eli Zaretskii wrote:
>> This conflict arose because the designers of Windows
>> did not concern themselves with how Emacs used these characters.
>>     

I suggest that at least the above sentence must be removed, as it 
incorrectly gives the designers of Windows credit for the CUA standard.

In fact, I suggest that advertising Windows in this text and including 
it in a Windows specific section of the manual is inappropriate, as many 
systems now use the control key as the default modifier for their CUA 
keybindings (Gnome and KDE for example).

> To add insult to injury, the ChangeLog entry accuses me of being
> lopsided towards Windows:
>   

I think you're reading too much into that text, it does not imply any 
accusation to me.

Re: Emacs-diffs Digest, Vol 50, Issue 7

[Kim F. Storm]

Jason Rumney <jasonr@gnu.org> writes:

> Eli Zaretskii wrote:
>>> This conflict arose because the designers of Windows
>>> did not concern themselves with how Emacs used these characters.
>>>     
>
> I suggest that at least the above sentence must be removed, as it
> incorrectly gives the designers of Windows credit for the CUA
> standard.

Well, it is a bit blurry whether C-z C-x C-c C-v is actually part of CUA.

IIRC, they come from the Mac (or Lisa) as the "Apple+Z" etc keys, and
since Apple made revisions to the CUA spec, these bindings ended up in
Windoze as C-z etc.

But it is right that M$ didn't invent CUA.

> In fact, I suggest that advertising Windows in this text and including
> it in a Windows specific section of the manual is inappropriate, as
> many systems now use the control key as the default modifier for their
> CUA keybindings (Gnome and KDE for example).

Yes, although I seldom use Windoze for any serious work (expect
reading my company mail) I still prefer to use the CUA bindings to be
compatible with a lot of other FREE applications that I use -- and
Windoze when I have to :-).

So this basically has _nothing_ to do with Windoze as such ... it has
something to do with the majority of "modern" gui applications which
are (more or less) CUA compliant.

So I agree that this is the wrong part of the Manual to put this info.

-- 
Kim F. Storm <storm@cua.dk> http://www.cua.dk

Re: Emacs-diffs Digest, Vol 50, Issue 7

[Eli Zaretskii]

> Cc: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>,  rms@gnu.org,  emacs-devel@gnu.org
> From: storm@cua.dk (Kim F. Storm)
> Date: Wed, 03 Jan 2007 16:54:28 +0100
> 
> So I agree that this is the wrong part of the Manual to put this info.

It was requested by Windows users, on the pretense that Windows users
will be surprised by the different bindings of the CUA keys.  If you
think we should reiterate the same info elsewhere in the manual, I see
no harm saying it in some other place as well.  The text is very short
anyway.

Re: Emacs-diffs Digest, Vol 50, Issue 7

[Richard Stallman]

Since this is a matter of personal feelings, I will reply to you personally.

Re: Emacs-diffs Digest, Vol 50, Issue 7

[Richard Stallman]

    I suggest that at least the above sentence must be removed, as it 
    incorrectly gives the designers of Windows credit for the CUA standard.

Who did design that specification?

Re: Emacs-diffs Digest, Vol 50, Issue 7

[Michael Welsh Duggan]

Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org> writes:

>     I suggest that at least the above sentence must be removed, as it 
>     incorrectly gives the designers of Windows credit for the CUA standard.
>
> Who did design that specification?

>From Wikipedia:

  Common User Access (CUA) is a set of guidelines for the user
  interface to personal computer operating systems and computer
  programs, developed by IBM and first published in 1987 as part of
  their Systems Application Architecture. Used originally in the OS/2
  and Microsoft Windows operating systems, parts of the CUA standard
  are now implemented in programs for other operating systems,
  including variants of Unix. Java AWT and Swing use it as well.

CUA did draw inspiration from Apple's Himan Interface Guidelines.
Interestingly enough.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_User_Access

-- 
Michael Welsh Duggan
(md5i@cs.cmu.edu)

Re: Emacs-diffs Digest, Vol 50, Issue 7

[David Kastrup]

Michael Welsh Duggan <md5i@cs.cmu.edu> writes:

> CUA did draw inspiration from Apple's Himan Interface Guidelines.
> Interestingly enough.

Is "Himan" short for "highway man"?  It would explain the single
trigger button and the design of point-and-click interfaces.
Threatening a computer seems like a natural thing to do.  Gratifying.
And it also explains how one can often get the computer scared into
doing more things by double-clicking.  Now what happens if the mouse
actually is loaded?

-- 
David Kastrup

Re: Emacs-diffs Digest, Vol 50, Issue 7

[Jason Rumney]

Richard Stallman wrote:
>     I suggest that at least the above sentence must be removed, as it 
>     incorrectly gives the designers of Windows credit for the CUA standard.
>
> Who did design that specification?
>   

IBM, though a lot of the guidelines came from Apple's HIG from what I 
understand.

Re: Emacs-diffs Digest, Vol 50, Issue 7

[Kim F. Storm]

David Kastrup <dak@gnu.org> writes:

> Michael Welsh Duggan <md5i@cs.cmu.edu> writes:
>
>> CUA did draw inspiration from Apple's Himan Interface Guidelines.
>> Interestingly enough.
>
> Is "Himan" short for "highway man"?  It would explain the single
> trigger button and the design of point-and-click interfaces.

Seems like "Hitman Interface Guidelines" would be more accurate :-)

-- 
Kim F. Storm <storm@cua.dk> http://www.cua.dk

Re: Emacs-diffs Digest, Vol 50, Issue 7

[David Kastrup]

storm@cua.dk (Kim F. Storm) writes:

> David Kastrup <dak@gnu.org> writes:
>
>> Michael Welsh Duggan <md5i@cs.cmu.edu> writes:
>>
>>> CUA did draw inspiration from Apple's Himan Interface Guidelines.
>>> Interestingly enough.
>>
>> Is "Himan" short for "highway man"?  It would explain the single
>> trigger button and the design of point-and-click interfaces.
>
> Seems like "Hitman Interface Guidelines" would be more accurate :-)

Makes sense.  I stand corrected.

-- 
David Kastrup

Re: Emacs-diffs Digest, Vol 50, Issue 7

[Jan Djärv]

Michael Welsh Duggan skrev:
> Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org> writes:
> 
>>     I suggest that at least the above sentence must be removed, as it 
>>     incorrectly gives the designers of Windows credit for the CUA standard.
>>
>> Who did design that specification?
> 
>>From Wikipedia:
> 
>   Common User Access (CUA) is a set of guidelines for the user
>   interface to personal computer operating systems and computer
>   programs, developed by IBM and first published in 1987 as part of
>   their Systems Application Architecture. Used originally in the OS/2
>   and Microsoft Windows operating systems, parts of the CUA standard
>   are now implemented in programs for other operating systems,
>   including variants of Unix. Java AWT and Swing use it as well.
> 
> CUA did draw inspiration from Apple's Himan Interface Guidelines.
> Interestingly enough.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_User_Access
> 

This was interesting:

The Cut command is [Shift]+[Del]; Copy is [Ctrl]+[Ins]; Paste is [Shift]+[Ins];

So is Ctrl-C/V/X really part of CUA at all?

	Jan D.

Re: Emacs-diffs Digest, Vol 50, Issue 7

[Kim F. Storm]

Jan Djärv <jan.h.d@swipnet.se> writes:

> So is Ctrl-C/V/X really part of CUA at all?

If you enable CUA mode it is :-)

-- 
Kim F. Storm <storm@cua.dk> http://www.cua.dk

Re: Emacs-diffs Digest, Vol 50, Issue 7

[Lennart Borgman (gmail)]

Kim F. Storm wrote:
> Jan Djärv <jan.h.d@swipnet.se> writes:
>
>   
>> So is Ctrl-C/V/X really part of CUA at all?
>>     
>
> If you enable CUA mode it is :-)

I found someone saying that is was added in CUA 2.0. I have a vauge 
memory of seeing something like that before too.

Re: Emacs-diffs Digest, Vol 50, Issue 7

[Richard Stallman]

      Common User Access (CUA) is a set of guidelines for the user
      interface to personal computer operating systems and computer
      programs, developed by IBM and first published in 1987 as part of
      their Systems Application Architecture. Used originally in the OS/2
      and Microsoft Windows operating systems,

I clarified the text based on that information.  Thanks.

Re: Emacs-diffs Digest, Vol 50, Issue 7

[Richard Stallman]

    > So is Ctrl-C/V/X really part of CUA at all?

    If you enable CUA mode it is :-)

There is a miscommunication here.  He is not asking about the Emacs
CUA mode.  He's asking about what was in the spec that the MS Windows
designers started with.

Lennart Borgman wrote:

    I found someone saying that is was added in CUA 2.0. I have a vauge 
    memory of seeing something like that before too.

If that is true, what was the date of CUA 2.0?  And did MS Windows
copy those commands from CUA 2.0?

Re: Emacs-diffs Digest, Vol 50, Issue 7

[Kim F. Storm]

Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org> writes:

>     > So is Ctrl-C/V/X really part of CUA at all?
>
>     If you enable CUA mode it is :-)
>
> There is a miscommunication here.  He is not asking about the Emacs
> CUA mode.  He's asking about what was in the spec that the MS Windows
> designers started with.

I did understand that ... it was a joke!

>
> Lennart Borgman wrote:
>
>     I found someone saying that is was added in CUA 2.0. I have a vauge 
>     memory of seeing something like that before too.
>
> If that is true, what was the date of CUA 2.0?  And did MS Windows
> copy those commands from CUA 2.0?

Why does it matter whether it was IBM, Apple or M$ who invented the
C-z C-x C-c C-v shortcuts (and thus broke compatibility with Emacs)?

No matter what we think or feel, or whether history is on our side,
most "modern" applications use these bindings -- including GNOME, KDE
and Firefox, so today it is Emacs which is "incompatible" with "common
practice".

That's a fact, and trying to blame "the designers of CUA" for creating
a consistent (and IMHO excellent) interface is plain silly IMO.

So for users who like the consistency with their other application,
Emacs 22 has CUA mode which provide the functionality without
breaking existing Emacs bindings.

So IMO (but I'm biased of course), there's no reason to have a
negative attitude towards CUA at all -- if people like those bindings,
just use them.  And that's it.

-- 
Kim F. Storm <storm@cua.dk> http://www.cua.dk

Re: Emacs-diffs Digest, Vol 50, Issue 7

[Richard Stallman]

    Why does it matter whether it was IBM, Apple or M$ who invented the
    C-z C-x C-c C-v shortcuts (and thus broke compatibility with Emacs)?

someone else said it was unfair to attribute these to Microsoft, since
others actually designed the interface.

    No matter what we think or feel, or whether history is on our side,
    most "modern" applications use these bindings -- including GNOME, KDE
    and Firefox, so today it is Emacs which is "incompatible" with "common
    practice".

That is why it is important to note that Emacs and its command set
came first.

Re: Emacs-diffs Digest, Vol 50, Issue 7

[Juri Linkov]

>     Why does it matter whether it was IBM, Apple or M$ who invented the
>     C-z C-x C-c C-v shortcuts (and thus broke compatibility with Emacs)?
>
> someone else said it was unfair to attribute these to Microsoft, since
> others actually designed the interface.

I certainly remember reading IBM CUA Guidelines a decade ago
there were no such keys as C-x C-c C-v defined.  So it is unfair to
blame CUA designers for defining these stupid keys.  On the contrary,
they did a good job by defining neutral keys: S-DEL for cut, C-INS for
Copy, and S-INS for Paste.  I can't track down who first introduced
C-x C-c C-v.  Quite likely it was Microsoft trying to mimic Apple's
special keys Command-x Command-c Command-v at the time when the Windows
key was not yet duplicated from Apple's Command key.

>     No matter what we think or feel, or whether history is on our side,
>     most "modern" applications use these bindings -- including GNOME, KDE
>     and Firefox, so today it is Emacs which is "incompatible" with "common
>     practice".
>
> That is why it is important to note that Emacs and its command set
> came first.

This is especially important for Emacs newbies whose first question about
Emacs nowadays is how to change C-x C-c C-v keys to cut, copy and paste.

-- 
Juri Linkov
http://www.jurta.org/emacs/

Re: Emacs-diffs Digest, Vol 50, Issue 7

[Kim F. Storm]

Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org> writes:

>     Why does it matter whether it was IBM, Apple or M$ who invented the
>     C-z C-x C-c C-v shortcuts (and thus broke compatibility with Emacs)?
>
> someone else said it was unfair to attribute these to Microsoft, since
> others actually designed the interface.
>
>     No matter what we think or feel, or whether history is on our side,
>     most "modern" applications use these bindings -- including GNOME, KDE
>     and Firefox, so today it is Emacs which is "incompatible" with "common
>     practice".
>
> That is why it is important to note that Emacs and its command set
> came first.

So you claim to have invented the concept of doing cut, copy, and paste 
via keyboard commands, and that Emacs was the first program to do that?

Otherwise, this whole argument is silly.

-- 
Kim F. Storm <storm@cua.dk> http://www.cua.dk

Re: Emacs-diffs Digest, Vol 50, Issue 7

[Stefan Monnier]

>> Why does it matter whether it was IBM, Apple or M$ who invented the
>> C-z C-x C-c C-v shortcuts (and thus broke compatibility with Emacs)?
>> 
>> someone else said it was unfair to attribute these to Microsoft, since
>> others actually designed the interface.
>> 
>> No matter what we think or feel, or whether history is on our side,
>> most "modern" applications use these bindings -- including GNOME, KDE
>> and Firefox, so today it is Emacs which is "incompatible" with "common
>> practice".
>> 
>> That is why it is important to note that Emacs and its command set
>> came first.

> So you claim to have invented the concept of doing cut, copy, and paste 
> via keyboard commands, and that Emacs was the first program to do that?

> Otherwise, this whole argument is silly.

I haven't read the actual text recently, but I think it makes sense to
mention that the current bindings predate CUA's, not to brag about it or to
complain about CUA's lack of respect for Emacs's choices, but so as to
explain why the current bindings don't play well with CUA: it's
a historical accident.


        Stefan

RE: Emacs-diffs Digest, Vol 50, Issue 7

[Drew Adams]

> I haven't read the actual text recently, but I think it makes sense to
> mention that the current bindings predate CUA's, not to brag
> about it or to
> complain about CUA's lack of respect for Emacs's choices, but so as to
> explain why the current bindings don't play well with CUA: it's
> a historical accident.

Jumping in...

I don't know if it's true or important whether there are good reasons (I
think so) for Emacs's bindings or CUA's bindings, or whether the bindings or
the incompatibility are just historical accidents.

I'm not sure it's good to burden the user with such explanations. I would
simply point out the difference and the incompatibility. I would mention
that some people prefer one set of bindings and other people prefer the
other set of bindings - and both are available in Emacs! No need, in the
doc, to justify or try to convince people to use one or the other. Just let
readers know that there are two choices.

If there are other incompatibilities between CUA-mode and other parts of
Emacs (I have no idea), then that can also be pointed out. That might be one
reason that some people would prefer "Emacs Classique" over "Emacs CUA". If
so, it would be worth pointing out, not to sell "Emacs Classique", but to
inform users more about the consequences of the two choices.

As to mentioning priority, I don't think it matters, so Occam says
fuggeddabbowdit. It's not important that Emacs bindings were first. It might
be important that there are good reasons to use Emacs's bindings, but prior
design is not one of them, and it need not be mentioned.

 - Drew, who uses Emacs Classique, but CUA outside of Emacs when he has to

(What? Does Emacs have an outside?)

Re: Emacs-diffs Digest, Vol 50, Issue 7

[Kim F. Storm]

Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> writes:

> a historical accident.

The current text suggests it was done deliberately:

  Many key combinations (known as ``keyboard shortcuts'') that have
conventional uses in MS-Windows programs conflict with traditional
Emacs commands.  This conflict arose because the designers of the CUA
interface implemented by MS-Windows did not try to avoid conflict with
Emacs.

The second sentense is superfluous at best.

The text continues:

  Examples of conflicts include @kbd{C-c}, @kbd{C-x}, @kbd{C-z},
@kbd{C-a}, and @kbd{W-@key{SPC}}.  You can redefine some of them with
meanings more like the MS-Windows meanings by enabling CUA Mode
(@pxref{CUA Bindings}).


As I've tried to say, the CUA (or rather C-[zxcv]) bindings are
no longer MS-Windows specific ...  the text could just as well
have said GNOME [in a non-MS-DOG context].

Also the text is overly cryptic ... why not just say:

  You can resolve these conflicts by enabling CUA Mode.

-- 
Kim F. Storm <storm@cua.dk> http://www.cua.dk

Re: Emacs-diffs Digest, Vol 50, Issue 7

[David Kastrup]

storm@cua.dk (Kim F. Storm) writes:

> Also the text is overly cryptic ... why not just say:
>
>   You can resolve these conflicts by enabling CUA Mode.

Because it is wrong?

This does not actually resolve the conflicts.  Only completely
different bindings would achieve that.

Instead, it implements compromises which allow both sets of bindings
to remain mostly usable while only moderately stepping on each other's
toes.

-- 
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum

Re: Emacs-diffs Digest, Vol 50, Issue 7

[Richard Stallman]

    > That is why it is important to note that Emacs and its command set
    > came first.

    So you claim to have invented the concept of doing cut, copy, and paste 
    via keyboard commands, and that Emacs was the first program to do that?

That isn't the point at all.  The point is that we did not ignore
Windows when we chose the Emacs commands.  We chose them in 1975
when Microsoft did not even exist.

Re: Emacs-diffs Digest, Vol 50, Issue 7

[Kim F. Storm]

David Kastrup <dak@gnu.org> writes:

> storm@cua.dk (Kim F. Storm) writes:
>
>> Also the text is overly cryptic ... why not just say:
>>
>>   You can resolve these conflicts by enabling CUA Mode.
>
> Because it is wrong?

Formally yes, but if you enable CUA mode to get the C-zxcv bindings,
there is no real "conflict" ... as you would not expect to use C-v to
scroll the window.

And following the xref will give the details.

>
> This does not actually resolve the conflicts.  Only completely
> different bindings would achieve that.

The issue is how to make Emacs and CUA bindings co-exist --
not invent a third set of key bindings.

>
> Instead, it implements compromises which allow both sets of bindings
> to remain mostly usable while only moderately stepping on each other's
> toes.

Isn't that "resolving conflicts" ?

-- 
Kim F. Storm <storm@cua.dk> http://www.cua.dk

Re: Emacs-diffs Digest, Vol 50, Issue 7

[kevin.gal]

>    > That is why it is important to note that Emacs and its command set
>    > came first.
>
>    So you claim to have invented the concept of doing cut, copy, and paste 
>    via keyboard commands, and that Emacs was the first program to do that?
>
>That isn't the point at all.  The point is that we did not ignore
>Windows when we chose the Emacs commands.  We chose them in 1975
>when Microsoft did not even exist.

Perhaps you'll find these links of interest:

http://www.research.ibm.com/journal/sj/313/ibmsj3103C.pdf
http://www.research.ibm.com/journal/sj/313/ibmsj3103D.pdf
http://www.research.ibm.com/journal/sj/273/ibmsj2703E.pdf
http://www.research.ibm.com/journal/sj/273/ibmsj2703E.pdf

Re: Emacs-diffs Digest, Vol 50, Issue 7

[Chris Moore]

<kevin.gal@verizon.net> writes:

> Perhaps you'll find these links of interest:
>
> http://www.research.ibm.com/journal/sj/313/ibmsj3103C.pdf
> http://www.research.ibm.com/journal/sj/313/ibmsj3103D.pdf
> http://www.research.ibm.com/journal/sj/273/ibmsj2703E.pdf
> http://www.research.ibm.com/journal/sj/273/ibmsj2703E.pdf

Those last 2 are the same.

Re: Emacs-diffs Digest, Vol 50, Issue 7

[Kevin Gallagher]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 491 bytes --]

Chris Moore wrote:
> <kevin.gal@verizon.net> writes:
>
>   
>> Perhaps you'll find these links of interest:
>>
>> http://www.research.ibm.com/journal/sj/313/ibmsj3103C.pdf
>> http://www.research.ibm.com/journal/sj/313/ibmsj3103D.pdf
>> http://www.research.ibm.com/journal/sj/273/ibmsj2703E.pdf
>> http://www.research.ibm.com/journal/sj/273/ibmsj2703E.pdf
>>     
>
> Those last 2 are the same.
>
>   
Sorry.  The last one should be

http://www.research.ibm.com/journal/sj/273/ibmsj2703F.pdf

[-- Attachment #1.2: Type: text/html, Size: 1472 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 142 bytes --]

_______________________________________________
Emacs-devel mailing list
Emacs-devel@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-devel

Re: Emacs-diffs Digest, Vol 50, Issue 7

[Richard Stallman]

Do these articles shed any light on the question of where the Windows bindings
of C-x, C-c and C-v got started?

Re: Emacs-diffs Digest, Vol 50, Issue 7

[Peter Whaite]

Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org> wrote:

> Do these articles shed any light on the question of where the Windows bindings
> of C-x, C-c and C-v got started?

I haven't looked at those articles (too much pdf to download on my slow
dialup) but my recollection is that Windows followed the convention
already in use by Apple, though Apple used the command key (the
"pretzel" key) which was missing from Windows keyboards.

The mnemonics I use for those keys, and which I thought were commonly
known, are:

  Cmd-X   cut   - the X looks like a pair of scissors
  Cmd-C   copy  - C is for copy
  Cmd-V   paste - the V looks like the nozzel of a glue pot.

I think I first heard these when the 128K Macs came out.  It also
wouldn't surprise me if Apple was following a convention establised for
the Zerox Star.


-- 
Peter Whaite

Re: Emacs-diffs Digest, Vol 50, Issue 7

[tomas]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Thu, Jan 11, 2007 at 12:46:41PM -0500, Peter Whaite wrote:
> Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org> wrote:
> 
> > Do these articles shed any light on the question of where the Windows bindings
> > of C-x, C-c and C-v got started?
> 
> I haven't looked at those articles (too much pdf to download on my slow
> dialup) but my recollection is that Windows followed the convention
> already in use by Apple, though Apple used the command key (the
> "pretzel" key) which was missing from Windows keyboards.
> 
> The mnemonics I use for those keys, and which I thought were commonly
> known, are:
> 
>   Cmd-X   cut   - the X looks like a pair of scissors
>   Cmd-C   copy  - C is for copy
>   Cmd-V   paste - the V looks like the nozzel of a glue pot.

Right. At that time Windows went with IBM's CUA, which had the
more-difficult-to-remember SHIFT-INS, CTRL-INS and (I think) CTRL-DEL. I
guess they still work.

Regards
- -- tomás
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFFpnoqBcgs9XrR2kYRAkDpAJ9MCarvCy27Lj+S9xFLcEqgimjHYQCfci0C
7uApkrbUk3aDMxSdjM+6fro=
=5i7V
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: Emacs-diffs Digest, Vol 50, Issue 7

[Stuart D. Herring]

> Right. At that time Windows went with IBM's CUA, which had the
> more-difficult-to-remember SHIFT-INS, CTRL-INS and (I think) CTRL-DEL. I
> guess they still work.

They do, but in case anyone's curious it's Shift-Delete for Cut, not
Ctrl-Delete (which at that time did nothing but later became delete next
word).  Shift-Insert is Paste, and Ctrl-Insert is Copy.

Davis

-- 
This product is sold by volume, not by mass.  If it appears too dense or
too sparse, it is because mass-energy conversion has occurred during
shipping.

Re: Emacs-diffs Digest, Vol 50, Issue 7

[Richard Stallman]

I think I have written text which gets the relevant point across
and which is likely not to make anyone feel offended.