From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: David.Kastrup@t-online.de (David Kastrup) Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Will default key bindings spell the death of Emacs? Date: 01 Jun 2003 14:12:43 +0200 Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+emacs-devel=quimby.gnus.org@gnu.org Message-ID: References: <3ED67422.7060305@math.ku.dk> <20030529214728.GA24984@gnu.org> Reply-To: dak@gnu.org NNTP-Posting-Host: main.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: main.gmane.org 1054483914 7882 80.91.224.249 (1 Jun 2003 16:11:54 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@main.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 1 Jun 2003 16:11:54 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+emacs-devel=quimby.gnus.org@gnu.org Sun Jun 01 18:11:52 2003 Return-path: Original-Received: from quimby.gnus.org ([80.91.224.244]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 19MVR2-00022y-00 for ; Sun, 01 Jun 2003 18:11:52 +0200 Original-Received: from monty-python.gnu.org ([199.232.76.173]) by quimby.gnus.org with esmtp (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian)) id 19MVhE-0003vE-00 for ; Sun, 01 Jun 2003 18:28:36 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19MVSv-0006Yw-JV for emacs-devel@quimby.gnus.org; Sun, 01 Jun 2003 12:13:49 -0400 Original-Received: from list by monty-python.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.20) id 19MVRW-0005V7-QT for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 01 Jun 2003 12:12:22 -0400 Original-Received: from mail by monty-python.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.20) id 19MVQ9-0004wP-Sz for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 01 Jun 2003 12:10:58 -0400 Original-Received: from mailout11.sul.t-online.com ([194.25.134.85]) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19MVGH-0002or-VP for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 01 Jun 2003 12:00:46 -0400 Original-Received: from fwd11.sul.t-online.de by mailout11.sul.t-online.com with smtp id 19MVGA-0002Sq-07; Sun, 01 Jun 2003 18:00:39 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost.localdomain (520018396234-0001@[62.226.12.190]) by fwd11.sul.t-online.com with esmtp id 19MVFx-0Fj5QOC; Sun, 1 Jun 2003 18:00:25 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost.localdomain (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.localdomain (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h51CCkF8013954; Sun, 1 Jun 2003 14:13:26 +0200 Original-Received: (from dak@localhost) by localhost.localdomain (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h51CCivo013950; Sun, 1 Jun 2003 14:12:44 +0200 Original-To: bob@rattlesnake.com In-Reply-To: Original-Lines: 76 User-Agent: Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.3.50 X-Sender: 520018396234-0001@t-dialin.net X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1b5 Precedence: list List-Id: Emacs development discussions. List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+emacs-devel=quimby.gnus.org@gnu.org Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:14560 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.devel:14560 "Robert J. Chassell" writes: > David.Kastrup@t-online.de (David Kastrup) wrote: > > I was giving an example for a user interface. What Emacs has nowadays > does not really deserve that name. > > But that particular kind of user interface is not the only kind that > exists. Emacs provides two excellent user interfaces. No. It provides an interface to the functionality, but "user interface" implies something more than just the capability to manually edit some configuration files. Even if the format of the configuration files can be found in "user documentation". > My point is that there are several different kinds of user interface. > It is misleading to say that > > .... an example for a user interface. What Emacs has nowadays > does not really deserve that name. > > because that suggests that Emacs lacks a decent user interface. It does. It is an interface, but not a user interface. > On the contrary, Emacs provides two really good user interfaces that > should not be devalued: > > * a user interface for people who are permanently or situationally > blind (Emacs does), and, > > * a user interface for people who desire to change more than three > bindings at one time efficiently and who are willing to spend > time, but less than the time of doing it awkwardly, learning how > to do this. I don't see how the ability to edit .emacs should count as one user interface, let alone two. > I agree that Emacs could do better to also provide a user interface > for people who are sighted and who do not want to learn a more > efficent technique, but it is a mistake to write as if that > particular kind of user interface is the only worthy kind. Does `customize' not play together with things like Emacspeak? > > But at the same time, Emacs should also provide ... > > This is a somewhat orthogonal aim. I don't see why one should > make the availability of one user interface depend on that of > another. > > I am not saying we should make one depend on another. I am saying > that a user interface for the blind is important, as is a user > interface for those who desire to work with computers comfortably, > quickly, and efficiently. It is the internal Emacs interface to key bindings and thus will remain usable, and in fact, underlying any attempt of creating a user interface to keybindings. > And neither of these two kinds of user interface should be relegated > to the near invisible status of a notion that does `not really > deserve [a] name.' Oh, it deserves a name, just not that of a user interface. Being able to call functionality with Lisp does not make it a user interface. You could call the _interactive_ binding of global-set-key and its ilk a user interface, if you really wanted to, but this interface is not catering for persistence: you still have to edit your .emacs manually if you want your keybindings to stay. Not even the somewhat quaint `disabled' commands require you to do the editing yourself in case you want to enable commands for permanent. -- David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum