Modifier Keys and the Archaic Meta Key

Modifier Keys and the Archaic Meta Key

[Christopher Dimech]

Dear Compeers,

In 1975, when Richard Stallman and Guy Steele started designing
keybindings they used the keyboards used by Lisp Machines which
had Modifier Keys like Meta.

Today, Lisp Machines and their keyboards are only historical
keyboards whose use has become academic.  Thusly, I disapprove
of the practice of continuing with the use of the Modifier Key Mnemonic
'M' in documentation and code. Perhaps a historical note can be
included in the documentation about historical aspects, however
in terms of use and functionality, it is not strategically
productive to continue with the 'M' Mnemonic for things that do
not exist.

The Super Key Mnemonic is currently 's' (small letter s) which
conflicts the the usual letter 's'.  To distinguish Modifier Keys,
Upper Case should be made a rule, with the Super Key Mnemonic
being set to 'P' (the middle letter in Super).

Modifier Keys customarily are categorised by priority as follows.
Focus should be on Priority Levels rather just a letter among
five Modifier Keys.  Such discussion would make commands much
easier to figure out.

Priority 1: Control Key 'C'
Priority 2: Alternate Key 'A'
Priority 3: Hyper Key 'H'
Priority 4: Super Key 'P' (for middle letter, instead of 's')
Priority 5: Shift Key 'S'

This evaluation and modifications outlined is useful for users
today, whilst continuing with archaic elaboration on 1975 Lisp
Keyboards has become unproductive for new users.

Regards
Christopher

Re: Modifier Keys and the Archaic Meta Key

[Gregory Heytings via Users list for the GNU Emacs text editor]

>
> Priority 1: Control Key 'C'
> Priority 2: Alternate Key 'A'
> Priority 3: Hyper Key 'H'
> Priority 4: Super Key 'P' (for middle letter, instead of 's')
> Priority 5: Shift Key 'S'
>
> This evaluation and modifications outlined is useful for users today, 
> whilst continuing with archaic elaboration on 1975 Lisp Keyboards has 
> become unproductive for new users.
>

You cannot change thirty years of digital and printed documentation, 
configuration files, websites, and so forth.  Moreover the meta key is not 
only used by GNU Emacs, it is also used by other GNU software such as GDB 
or Bash (and in general all software that use the readline library).  And 
Meta is not only (on most keyboards) Alt, it is also Escape.

Re: Modifier Keys and the Archaic Meta Key

[Christopher Dimech]

Not instantly, that is agreed. But we can start with adding
the Key-Mnemonics 'A' and 'P'. We can call the key with Priority
2, the Alternate Key 'A'.

So nomenclature will be, by priority and Mnemonics:

Control (C), Alternate (A,M), Hyper(H), Shift(S), Super(P,s).

In Emacs Documentation, particularly in the Brief Emacs Tutorial, the
Alternate Key can be described together with a mention of Known Key
Associations (e.g., Alt, Meta).

By simply adding the two Mnemonics and changing the wording in the Emacs
Documentation (i.e., Emacs Tutorial and Emacs Manual) a planned process
can start.

Summary:

* Introduce 'A' and 'P' as Key Mnemonics for Alternate Key and Super Key.

* Change Emacs Documentation to use 'A' rather than 'M'.  But then state
in tutorial and manual of the additional mnemonic 'M' that can been found
in historical documentation.  This would not require everybody to change
every document there is out there.  But at least get these with the Official
Gnu Packages, in a period of a year, say.

Regards
Christopher


> Sent: Sunday, October 25, 2020 at 12:35 PM
> From: "Gregory Heytings" <ghe@sdf.org>
> To: "Christopher Dimech" <dimech@gmx.com>
> Cc: "Help Gnu Emacs" <help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org>
> Subject: Re: Modifier Keys and the Archaic Meta Key
>
>
> >
> > Priority 1: Control Key 'C'
> > Priority 2: Alternate Key 'A'
> > Priority 3: Hyper Key 'H'
> > Priority 4: Super Key 'P' (for middle letter, instead of 's')
> > Priority 5: Shift Key 'S'
> >
> > This evaluation and modifications outlined is useful for users today,
> > whilst continuing with archaic elaboration on 1975 Lisp Keyboards has
> > become unproductive for new users.
> >
>
> You cannot change thirty years of digital and printed documentation,
> configuration files, websites, and so forth.  Moreover the meta key is not
> only used by GNU Emacs, it is also used by other GNU software such as GDB
> or Bash (and in general all software that use the readline library).  And
> Meta is not only (on most keyboards) Alt, it is also Escape.
>

Re: Modifier Keys and the Archaic Meta Key

[Francis Belliveau]

> On Oct 25, 2020, at 08:49, Christopher Dimech <dimech@gmx.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> Not instantly, that is agreed. But we can start with adding
> the Key-Mnemonics 'A' and 'P'. We can call the key with Priority
> 2, the Alternate Key 'A'.
> 
> So nomenclature will be, by priority and Mnemonics:
> 
> Control (C), Alternate (A,M), Hyper(H), Shift(S), Super(P,s).

It seems that I have been left in the dark somewhere along the line.  I do not understand the concept of "priorities" in this context.
I have been using Emacs since the 1980's.
As I see it there are three modifier keys: Shift,Control and what Emacs calls Meta.  In general, Shift does not have meaning since it only changes the character that the other modifiers apply to (C-a versus C-A or C-, versus C-<).
I have always understood that what the Emacs documentation referred to as "the Meta Key" as the other modifier key used by the current OS or setup.
As I understand things the modifier keys apply, period.  C-M-a has no relationship to either C-a or M-a so where does priority come into play here?

Fran

Re: Modifier Keys and the Archaic Meta Key

[Christopher Dimech]

If you look at Emacs Built-In Key Bindings using "C-h b", you will notice
that many bindings use the Control Key "C-" (Priority 1).  The Meta Key was
used as an Alternate Control Key for other commands and is less numerous than
commands with "C-".

On the original Lisp Machine Keyboards, the Control key was the key adjacent to
the Space Bar, and was used because it was the easiest key to reach (hence
Priority 1). On newer keyboards, the Control Key is the third key away from the
Space Bar.  This make "C-" more difficult to use.  Hence there are some (including
myself) who remap the key to be the one closest to the Space Bar as in the Original
Lisp Keyboards.

The Meta key was the next key closest to the Control Key.  Hence Priority 2, as
it started to be used for commands that had already been binded to "C-".

The Hyper (H), Shift (S) and Super (s) Modifier keys were not really used, but users could
use them for their own keybindings so the Emacs Built-In Commands could be retained.

The Shift key was between the Control Key and the Meta Key.  Perhaps the Shift Key can be
assigned Priority 3.  There followed by the Super and finally by the Hyper Key, furthest
away.

Thus in sequence from farthest to closest from Space Bar, the Modifier Mnemonics are
{H,s,S,M,C}.  My argument is to have them {s,S,H,M,C}.  This remapping makes User
Defined Key Bindings next to the Principal Emacs Modifier Keys {M,C}.  The Shift Key
is used for a very limited commands (e.g., C-M-S).  This gives idea of priority.

Thus we can choose user defined keys with Hyper to be Priority 3, and let the Shift
Key become secondary to the Hyper.  Currently, the Mnemonic for the Super Key is
small letter "s", which can be regarded as the lowest priority key of the five
modifier keys that are used by Emacs Users.  Have suggested to also add Modifier
Mnemonic P, in addition to 's', because Modifier Keys are customarily Upcase Letters,
except for the Super Key (thusly use the middle letter and Capitalise it).

The considerations mentioned bring an easier and more organised approach to Key
Bindings, similar the the original ideas around the topic.  Today we have lost
such organised approach and we just bundle all keys with equal regard.  A situation
that has always got problematic to those trying to make sense to the many built-in
key-bindings in Emacs and how to pragmatically construct one's own.

Just as Guy Steele reconciled the six different Emacs Keybindings Sets of the time,
I am working to do the same for the new generation of Keyboards with more possibilities
for constructing one's own.  This has become vital particularly following the development
of Keyboard Variants such as Colemak (most suitable for the English Language) and Dvorak
(for other languages, especially non-latin ones).  There are also the mechanical
keyboard today with the Cherry MX Speed or Silver Switches that travel only 1.2 mm
rather than the standard 2mm, and require 45g of Actuation Force in contrast to the 50g for
Cherry MX Blues and the 60g for Cherry MX Blacks.

I am currently using the Cherry MX Silver myself.

Regards
Christopher


> Sent: Sunday, October 25, 2020 at 8:57 PM
> From: "Francis Belliveau" <f.belliveau@comcast.net>
> To: No recipient address
> Cc: "Help Gnu Emacs" <help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org>
> Subject: Re: Modifier Keys and the Archaic Meta Key
>
>
>
> > On Oct 25, 2020, at 08:49, Christopher Dimech <dimech@gmx.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Not instantly, that is agreed. But we can start with adding
> > the Key-Mnemonics 'A' and 'P'. We can call the key with Priority
> > 2, the Alternate Key 'A'.
> >
> > So nomenclature will be, by priority and Mnemonics:
> >
> > Control (C), Alternate (A,M), Hyper(H), Shift(S), Super(P,s).
>
> It seems that I have been left in the dark somewhere along the line.  I do not understand the concept of "priorities" in this context.
> I have been using Emacs since the 1980's.
> As I see it there are three modifier keys: Shift,Control and what Emacs calls Meta.  In general, Shift does not have meaning since it only changes the character that the other modifiers apply to (C-a versus C-A or C-, versus C-<).
> I have always understood that what the Emacs documentation referred to as "the Meta Key" as the other modifier key used by the current OS or setup.
> As I understand things the modifier keys apply, period.  C-M-a has no relationship to either C-a or M-a so where does priority come into play here?
>
> Fran
>

Re: Modifier Keys and the Archaic Meta Key, term keyboard becoming archaic soon

[Jean Louis]

- keyboard

For  the reason  that there  are so  many computers  today
without keyboards, it would be  very late to change M-x to
something   else,  as   keyboards   will  soon   disappear
as well. All the work of changing the M-x terminology will
be in vain.

* Overview of noun keyboard

The noun keyboard has 2 senses (first 1 from tagged texts)

1. (2) keyboard -- (device consisting  of a set of keys on
a piano or  organ or typewriter or  typesetting machine or
computer or the like)

15. key  -- (a lever  (as in  a keyboard) that  actuates a
mechanism when depressed)

On  billions of  computers  today like  tables and  phones
there is  no mechanism and  there is  no lever on  so many
mobile devices that use virtual "keyboards". Same trend is
expected  to come  to what  is called  "desktop" computers
(desktop may be obsolete as well).

Those who report bugs for Emacs while using mobile devices
such as tablets and phones  should be seriously warned not
to use the obsolete term "keyboard".

Neither  the  Emacs manual  nor  Emacs  was ever  made  to
support "virtual keyboards". 

Users of mobile devices should be disadvised to send Emacs
complaints  while using  the incorrect  and obsolete  term
"keyboard" as  that increases chances of  blame that Emacs
key  bindings cause  repetitive strain  injureis. Finally,
there are no  key bindings on such  devices simply because
they do not have keys.

Those  getting repetitive  strain injuries  on a  "virtual
keyboard"  shall be  diagnosed  having virtual  repetitive
strain injury.

It will be questionable if  that will be justification for
a sick pay.

Re: Modifier Keys and the Archaic Meta Key, term keyboard becoming archaic soon

[Christopher Dimech]

> virtual repetitive strain injury.

C* That's a good one. I wonder what they would have to say! :)


---------------------
Christopher Dimech
General Administrator - Naiad Informatics - GNU Project (Geocomputation)
- Geophysical Simulation
- Geological Subsurface Mapping
- Disaster Preparedness and Mitigation
- Natural Resource Exploration and Production
- Free Software Advocacy


> Sent: Monday, October 26, 2020 at 3:37 PM
> From: "Jean Louis" <bugs@gnu.support>
> To: "Christopher Dimech" <dimech@gmx.com>
> Cc: "Help Gnu Emacs" <help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org>, "Francis Belliveau" <f.belliveau@comcast.net>
> Subject: Re: Modifier Keys and the Archaic Meta Key, term keyboard becoming archaic soon
>
> - keyboard
>
> For  the reason  that there  are so  many computers  today
> without keyboards, it would be  very late to change M-x to
> something   else,  as   keyboards   will  soon   disappear
> as well. All the work of changing the M-x terminology will
> be in vain.
>
> * Overview of noun keyboard
>
> The noun keyboard has 2 senses (first 1 from tagged texts)
>
> 1. (2) keyboard -- (device consisting  of a set of keys on
> a piano or  organ or typewriter or  typesetting machine or
> computer or the like)
>
> 15. key  -- (a lever  (as in  a keyboard) that  actuates a
> mechanism when depressed)
>
> On  billions of  computers  today like  tables and  phones
> there is  no mechanism and  there is  no lever on  so many
> mobile devices that use virtual "keyboards". Same trend is
> expected  to come  to what  is called  "desktop" computers
> (desktop may be obsolete as well).
>
> Those who report bugs for Emacs while using mobile devices
> such as tablets and phones  should be seriously warned not
> to use the obsolete term "keyboard".
>
> Neither  the  Emacs manual  nor  Emacs  was ever  made  to
> support "virtual keyboards".
>
> Users of mobile devices should be disadvised to send Emacs
> complaints  while using  the incorrect  and obsolete  term
> "keyboard" as  that increases chances of  blame that Emacs
> key  bindings cause  repetitive strain  injureis. Finally,
> there are no  key bindings on such  devices simply because
> they do not have keys.
>
> Those  getting repetitive  strain injuries  on a  "virtual
> keyboard"  shall be  diagnosed  having virtual  repetitive
> strain injury.
>
> It will be questionable if  that will be justification for
> a sick pay.
>
>
>

Re: Modifier Keys and the Archaic Meta Key

[Jean Louis]

* Christopher Dimech <dimech@gmx.com> [2020-10-25 13:07]:
> Dear Compeers,
> 
> In 1975, when Richard Stallman and Guy Steele started designing
> keybindings they used the keyboards used by Lisp Machines which
> had Modifier Keys like Meta.

History is very interesting. I have read sometimes contradictory
hystorical statements, that both of them made the Emacs where it was
referred to GNU Emacs context.

Then before few days I found this Emacs development history:
https://www.jwz.org/doc/emacs-timeline.html

This shows that GNU Emacs is quite a different and separate peace of
software from the original 1976 Emacs, and I am not referring to
anything related to key design. Maybe RMS can tell us more about the
timeline.

> Today, Lisp Machines and their keyboards are only historical
> keyboards whose use has become academic.

From a viewpoint of average user shopping for Microsoft-like keyboards
in stores, that is very undertstandable as market is overwhelmed by
those new keyboards that are everywhere around us in general.

Times are changing and we do not know the future. I would prefer more
different meta or modifiers keys, and I have them too few. For example
on my laptop I have special laptop modifier Fn, Ctrl, Super, Alt, on
left side Alt, Menu type and Ctrl, I would prefer more of such for
better keybindings and more efficient work.

Look at this interesting keyboard, it is configurable:
https://kono.store/products/sa-symbiosis-keycaps?variant=12358483968100

> Thusly, I disapprove of the practice of continuing with the use of
> the Modifier Key Mnemonic 'M' in documentation and code. Perhaps a
> historical note can be included in the documentation about
> historical aspects, however in terms of use and functionality, it is
> not strategically productive to continue with the 'M' Mnemonic for
> things that do not exist.

While I do not disapprove the practice itself, I suggest improvements
in documentation.

From Emacs Glossary:

<Meta>

     Meta is the name of a modifier bit which you can use in a command
     character.  To enter a meta character, you hold down the <Meta> key
     while typing the character.  We refer to such characters with names
     that start with ‘Meta-’ (usually written ‘M-’ for short).  For
     example, ‘M-<’ is typed by holding down <Meta> and at the same time
     typing ‘<’ (which itself is done, on most terminals, by holding
     down <SHIFT> and typing ‘,’).  *Note Meta: User Input.

     On some terminals, the <Meta> key is actually labeled <Alt> or
     <Edit>.

<Alt>
     Alt is the name of a modifier bit that a keyboard input character
     may have.  To make a character Alt, type it while holding down the
     <Alt> key.  Such characters are given names that start with
     ‘<Alt>-’ (usually written ‘A-’ for short).  (Note that many
     terminals have a key labeled <Alt> that is really a <Meta> key.)
     *Note Alt: User Input.

That is true that references to Alt and Meta are there for historical
reasons. So it says in the manual.

Today there are other reasons and the definition of M-x is little
different than how it was originally meant.

Today M in M-x is not any more Alt only, it can be anything,
especially how it says in the manual, Meta is anyway converted
internally into ESC.

Maybe it will be surprising to you, I am one of people that often need
to use ESC as Meta key. There are examples of using Emacs on
LineageOS/Replicant/Android system where key such as ALT is not
displayed but ESC exists, depends of the keyboard being set. There are
examples when using Fvwm Crystal Window Manager where ALT is
automatically bound to its functions, there is example with the EXWM
Emacs X Window Manager where launching new instance of Emacs with
`emacs -q` especially for debugging purposes requires usage of ESC as
Meta key instead of Alt as Meta key.

Emacs was used widely on terminals, so it is understandable.

Me personally I know a military organization in Europe that uses many
terminals connected to main UNIX server. While obsolete in personal
computing they may not be obsolete for organizations world wide. I can
imagine that back in time computers were extremely expensive and using
multiple terminals was cost effective. Today it is not as terminals
are simply not easily to find on the market. But it is today less cost
effective to use computers who anyway only connects to their servers
for simple communication. Some companies like the Internet caffe in
Munich, Germany at the central train station used computers without
disks to boot from network, so they made it cost effective to spare on
hard disks, maybe they still do.

Terminals as such represent more safe technology as they are usually
directly connected through serial ports to the main server. They are
not using insecure wireless networking neither Internet. Yet they are
not available and serial ports are as well harder and harder to find,
right?

Some are creating terminals like these:

- https://hackaday.io/project/13273-diy-vt100-a-miniature-hardware-terminal

- https://thehighnibble.com/vt132/

yet they will not use any special keys on their whatever keyboards.

Today M-x means and could mean CAPS-LOCK-x and it could mean left menu
key, it could mean left Ctrl, it could mean ESC, or some other key,
that is all configurable (I guess). So meaning changed, it is not just
Meta, but it is better to refer to Meta for Emacs extended commands
then referring to ALT or S because settings are configurable, if Emacs
would refer to ALT,

> The Super Key Mnemonic is currently 's' (small letter s) which
> conflicts the the usual letter 's'.  To distinguish Modifier Keys,
> Upper Case should be made a rule, with the Super Key Mnemonic
> being set to 'P' (the middle letter in Super).

Interetsting observation.

> Modifier Keys customarily are categorised by priority as follows.
> Focus should be on Priority Levels rather just a letter among
> five Modifier Keys.  Such discussion would make commands much
> easier to figure out.
> 
> Priority 1: Control Key 'C'
> Priority 2: Alternate Key 'A'
> Priority 3: Hyper Key 'H'
> Priority 4: Super Key 'P' (for middle letter, instead of 's')
> Priority 5: Shift Key 'S'

I think even those priorities you mention are not widely known.

Another point is that LISP and dialects as Scheme are getting more and
more popular today, people seek the return of the Lisp Machines, there
is Mezzano (maybe spelling mistake) LISP OS, and so much more comes
back to Lisp these years and this may lead to sudden surge in
production of such specialized keyboards. I would be one buying such,
I need more modifiers.

Btw. there is new Symbolics http://symbolics-dks.com/ and still
providing Genera for Unix. Keyboards probably not.

What about those Apple based keyboards they have CONTROL, OPTION
(alt), COMMAND so in their case they write "alt" with small letters as
they did not probably have Alternative originally. On my Bluetooth
keyboard it is like that too, it is control, option, command.

It would not quite alright to say ALT-x instead of M-x as on their
keyboards it is "Option" and users are maybe (just guessing) used to
Option notation.

> This evaluation and modifications outlined is useful for users
> today, whilst continuing with archaic elaboration on 1975 Lisp
> Keyboards has become unproductive for new users.

From viewpoint of using exclusively ALT yes or making it clear for new
users on Windoze computers, then maybe yes. And there are other
viewpoints:

- if notation is changed, then historical wide usage of notation M-x
  would become surprising for many existing Emacs users. It would be
  difficult to accommodate new users for the sake of existing
  users. It is easier to adopt some modification to the definition of
  the M-x then change the notation. There is also nothing wrong for
  users to understand the etymology of M-x.

- More important is how Emacs have got its image by the M-x, as M-x
  now became new meaning in itself, it became part of the
  culture. Examples: https://emacslife.wordpress.com/about/ where
  website has title M-x emacs-life RET and
  https://www.zazzle.com/m_x_mug_mode_emacs_mug-168997655186727276
  with the mug for Emacs with M-x

M-x sleep

-- 
Jean Louis

Re: Modifier Keys and the Archaic Meta Key

[Christopher Dimech]

Rather than referring to the five principal Modifier Key,
immediately by Key Mnemonics, it is more useful to have
a name for them categorised by priority.

The Five Principal Modifier Keys can be called Control,
Alternate, Hyper, Shift, Super, then associate any mnemonic
one wants (Ctrl, Ctl) (Meta, Alt, Esc).  
 
It is recognised that the Control Modifier Key and the 
Meta Modifier Key are exclusively and most widely used
Modifier Keys for Emacs Built-In Keybindings.  Consequently
I group them together, one call it Control, whilst the other
as Alternate Control.  It makes the use of key much more precise.    

Consequently the Alternate Control Modifier Key would simply
be associated with Alt, but to the key as Priority 2, which
can be Alt, Esc, etc.  

I am aware some love historical talk, but they should be of
minor consideration, because the focus should be on understanding
how to use Gnu in the shortest time, rather than having to read
through a lot of distracting considerations.  I have no problem
with the M- nomenclature myself. 

As it is, I find that learning Emacs resembled too much a school
environment dictated by interesting but rudimentary reading 
following a textbook approach; rather than with professional  
users whose focus is getting the job done, and thusly get impatient
with reading material not immediately useful in figuring out how
to do a job.  

I agree of the utility of possibly more Modifier Keys.  However, sticking
with officially Five Major Modifier Key for now is adequate.  I customarily
use Mechanical Keyboards with Colemak Key Variation, and have to rebind certain
Key Sequences that are built-in into Emacs.  I also remap the order of keys
from (C, s, M) to (s, M, C).  In this way priority increases from right to
left.  The C Key is mapped to the key immediately to the left of the space bar
as in the original setup of the Lisp Keyboards.  However I do not simply switch
the Meta and Control Key as many have done, but organise the Keymaps by priority
going outward.

Regarding your mention for ability to use additional modifier keys, it could be
worthwhile to think on the possibility to create your own modifier keys like what
can be achieved with keybindings.  

> - More important is how Emacs have got its image by the M-x, as M-x
>   now became new meaning in itself, it became part of the
>   culture. Examples: https://emacslife.wordpress.com/about/ where
>   website has title M-x emacs-life RET and

My position would focus towards the Control Key as the 
Principal Control Key, whilst M becomes the Alternate
Control Key. 

Regards
Christopher


> Sent: Sunday, October 25, 2020 at 1:45 PM
> From: "Jean Louis" <bugs@gnu.support>
> To: "Christopher Dimech" <dimech@gmx.com>
> Cc: "Help Gnu Emacs" <help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org>
> Subject: Re: Modifier Keys and the Archaic Meta Key
>
> * Christopher Dimech <dimech@gmx.com> [2020-10-25 13:07]:
> > Dear Compeers,
> > 
> > In 1975, when Richard Stallman and Guy Steele started designing
> > keybindings they used the keyboards used by Lisp Machines which
> > had Modifier Keys like Meta.
> 
> History is very interesting. I have read sometimes contradictory
> hystorical statements, that both of them made the Emacs where it was
> referred to GNU Emacs context.
> 
> Then before few days I found this Emacs development history:
> https://www.jwz.org/doc/emacs-timeline.html
> 
> This shows that GNU Emacs is quite a different and separate peace of
> software from the original 1976 Emacs, and I am not referring to
> anything related to key design. Maybe RMS can tell us more about the
> timeline.
> 
> > Today, Lisp Machines and their keyboards are only historical
> > keyboards whose use has become academic.
> 
> From a viewpoint of average user shopping for Microsoft-like keyboards
> in stores, that is very undertstandable as market is overwhelmed by
> those new keyboards that are everywhere around us in general.
> 
> Times are changing and we do not know the future. I would prefer more
> different meta or modifiers keys, and I have them too few. For example
> on my laptop I have special laptop modifier Fn, Ctrl, Super, Alt, on
> left side Alt, Menu type and Ctrl, I would prefer more of such for
> better keybindings and more efficient work.
> 
> Look at this interesting keyboard, it is configurable:
> https://kono.store/products/sa-symbiosis-keycaps?variant=12358483968100
> 
> > Thusly, I disapprove of the practice of continuing with the use of
> > the Modifier Key Mnemonic 'M' in documentation and code. Perhaps a
> > historical note can be included in the documentation about
> > historical aspects, however in terms of use and functionality, it is
> > not strategically productive to continue with the 'M' Mnemonic for
> > things that do not exist.
> 
> While I do not disapprove the practice itself, I suggest improvements
> in documentation.
> 
> From Emacs Glossary:
> 
> <Meta>
> 
>      Meta is the name of a modifier bit which you can use in a command
>      character.  To enter a meta character, you hold down the <Meta> key
>      while typing the character.  We refer to such characters with names
>      that start with ‘Meta-’ (usually written ‘M-’ for short).  For
>      example, ‘M-<’ is typed by holding down <Meta> and at the same time
>      typing ‘<’ (which itself is done, on most terminals, by holding
>      down <SHIFT> and typing ‘,’).  *Note Meta: User Input.
> 
>      On some terminals, the <Meta> key is actually labeled <Alt> or
>      <Edit>.
> 
> <Alt>
>      Alt is the name of a modifier bit that a keyboard input character
>      may have.  To make a character Alt, type it while holding down the
>      <Alt> key.  Such characters are given names that start with
>      ‘<Alt>-’ (usually written ‘A-’ for short).  (Note that many
>      terminals have a key labeled <Alt> that is really a <Meta> key.)
>      *Note Alt: User Input.
> 
> That is true that references to Alt and Meta are there for historical
> reasons. So it says in the manual.
> 
> Today there are other reasons and the definition of M-x is little
> different than how it was originally meant.
> 
> Today M in M-x is not any more Alt only, it can be anything,
> especially how it says in the manual, Meta is anyway converted
> internally into ESC.
> 
> Maybe it will be surprising to you, I am one of people that often need
> to use ESC as Meta key. There are examples of using Emacs on
> LineageOS/Replicant/Android system where key such as ALT is not
> displayed but ESC exists, depends of the keyboard being set. There are
> examples when using Fvwm Crystal Window Manager where ALT is
> automatically bound to its functions, there is example with the EXWM
> Emacs X Window Manager where launching new instance of Emacs with
> `emacs -q` especially for debugging purposes requires usage of ESC as
> Meta key instead of Alt as Meta key.
> 
> Emacs was used widely on terminals, so it is understandable.
> 
> Me personally I know a military organization in Europe that uses many
> terminals connected to main UNIX server. While obsolete in personal
> computing they may not be obsolete for organizations world wide. I can
> imagine that back in time computers were extremely expensive and using
> multiple terminals was cost effective. Today it is not as terminals
> are simply not easily to find on the market. But it is today less cost
> effective to use computers who anyway only connects to their servers
> for simple communication. Some companies like the Internet caffe in
> Munich, Germany at the central train station used computers without
> disks to boot from network, so they made it cost effective to spare on
> hard disks, maybe they still do.
> 
> Terminals as such represent more safe technology as they are usually
> directly connected through serial ports to the main server. They are
> not using insecure wireless networking neither Internet. Yet they are
> not available and serial ports are as well harder and harder to find,
> right?
> 
> Some are creating terminals like these:
> 
> - https://hackaday.io/project/13273-diy-vt100-a-miniature-hardware-terminal
> 
> - https://thehighnibble.com/vt132/
> 
> yet they will not use any special keys on their whatever keyboards.
> 
> Today M-x means and could mean CAPS-LOCK-x and it could mean left menu
> key, it could mean left Ctrl, it could mean ESC, or some other key,
> that is all configurable (I guess). So meaning changed, it is not just
> Meta, but it is better to refer to Meta for Emacs extended commands
> then referring to ALT or S because settings are configurable, if Emacs
> would refer to ALT,
> 
> > The Super Key Mnemonic is currently 's' (small letter s) which
> > conflicts the the usual letter 's'.  To distinguish Modifier Keys,
> > Upper Case should be made a rule, with the Super Key Mnemonic
> > being set to 'P' (the middle letter in Super).
> 
> Interetsting observation.
> 
> > Modifier Keys customarily are categorised by priority as follows.
> > Focus should be on Priority Levels rather just a letter among
> > five Modifier Keys.  Such discussion would make commands much
> > easier to figure out.
> > 
> > Priority 1: Control Key 'C'
> > Priority 2: Alternate Key 'A'
> > Priority 3: Hyper Key 'H'
> > Priority 4: Super Key 'P' (for middle letter, instead of 's')
> > Priority 5: Shift Key 'S'
> 
> I think even those priorities you mention are not widely known.
> 
> Another point is that LISP and dialects as Scheme are getting more and
> more popular today, people seek the return of the Lisp Machines, there
> is Mezzano (maybe spelling mistake) LISP OS, and so much more comes
> back to Lisp these years and this may lead to sudden surge in
> production of such specialized keyboards. I would be one buying such,
> I need more modifiers.
> 
> Btw. there is new Symbolics http://symbolics-dks.com/ and still
> providing Genera for Unix. Keyboards probably not.
> 
> What about those Apple based keyboards they have CONTROL, OPTION
> (alt), COMMAND so in their case they write "alt" with small letters as
> they did not probably have Alternative originally. On my Bluetooth
> keyboard it is like that too, it is control, option, command.
> 
> It would not quite alright to say ALT-x instead of M-x as on their
> keyboards it is "Option" and users are maybe (just guessing) used to
> Option notation.
> 
> > This evaluation and modifications outlined is useful for users
> > today, whilst continuing with archaic elaboration on 1975 Lisp
> > Keyboards has become unproductive for new users.
> 
> From viewpoint of using exclusively ALT yes or making it clear for new
> users on Windoze computers, then maybe yes. And there are other
> viewpoints:
> 
> - if notation is changed, then historical wide usage of notation M-x
>   would become surprising for many existing Emacs users. It would be
>   difficult to accommodate new users for the sake of existing
>   users. It is easier to adopt some modification to the definition of
>   the M-x then change the notation. There is also nothing wrong for
>   users to understand the etymology of M-x.
> 
> - More important is how Emacs have got its image by the M-x, as M-x
>   now became new meaning in itself, it became part of the
>   culture. Examples: https://emacslife.wordpress.com/about/ where
>   website has title M-x emacs-life RET and
>   https://www.zazzle.com/m_x_mug_mode_emacs_mug-168997655186727276
>   with the mug for Emacs with M-x
> 
> M-x sleep
> 
> -- 
> Jean Louis
>

Re: Modifier Keys and the Archaic Meta Key

[Francis Belliveau]

> On Oct 25, 2020, at 09:46, Christopher Dimech <dimech@gmx.com> wrote:
> 
> Rather than referring to the five principal Modifier Key,
> immediately by Key Mnemonics, it is more useful to have
> a name for them categorised by priority.
> 
> The Five Principal Modifier Keys can be called Control,
> Alternate, Hyper, Shift, Super, then associate any mnemonic
> one wants (Ctrl, Ctl) (Meta, Alt, Esc).

It seems to me that only makes sense on your keyboard, not mine.
I have no problem with allowing users the ability to define other modifier keys, but that would likely require the underlying code to support more morifier bits that is does currently.


> It is recognised that the Control Modifier Key and the 
> Meta Modifier Key are exclusively and most widely used
> Modifier Keys for Emacs Built-In Keybindings.  Consequently
> I group them together, one call it Control, whilst the other
> as Alternate Control.  It makes the use of key much more precise.    
> 
> Consequently the Alternate Control Modifier Key would simply
> be associated with Alt, but to the key as Priority 2, which
> can be Alt, Esc, etc. 

That seems like adding a lot of words with no real value-added.  If there are no keyboards in existance today with a key labeled Meta, then the meaning is clear that it is the other modifier key without needing to resort to excessive verbosity.

> I agree of the utility of possibly more Modifier Keys.  However, sticking
> with officially Five Major Modifier Key for now is adequate.  I customarily
> use Mechanical Keyboards with Colemak Key Variation, and have to rebind certain
> Key Sequences that are built-in into Emacs.  I also remap the order of keys
> from (C, s, M) to (s, M, C).  In this way priority increases from right to
> left.  The C Key is mapped to the key immediately to the left of the space bar
> as in the original setup of the Lisp Keyboards.  However I do not simply switch
> the Meta and Control Key as many have done, but organise the Keymaps by priority
> going outward.
> 

On my keyboard the keys are labeled (center to left) space, command, alt/option, control, function.
Depending on Emacs version the Meta key seems to change between Command and Option, I tend to adapt.  However, I am getting to like using option since it is distinct from the OS use of command. Option seems to be an application-specific modifier whereas Command has OS utility.  As far as I know the Function key is an OS-level key that modifies the keystrokes sent to the application, bnut I could be wrong.

Fran

Re: Modifier Keys and the Archaic Meta Key

[Christopher Dimech]

> It seems to me that only makes sense on your keyboard, not mine.
> I have no problem with allowing users the ability to define other modifier keys,
> but that would likely require the underlying code to support more morifier bits
> that is does currently.

C* I was just discussing the customary modifier keys historically associated with
Emacs.  There are five: {C,M,S,H,s}.

> > Consequently the Alternate Control Modifier Key would simply
> > be associated with Alt, but to the key as Priority 2, which
> > can be Alt, Esc, etc.
>
> That seems like adding a lot of words with no real value-added.  If there are
> no keyboards in existance today > with a key labeled Meta, then the meaning is
> clear that it is the other modifier key without needing to resort to excessive
> verbosity.

C* That is not always precise because Emacs also recognises the Hyper and Super
Keys as well, which I use - although using hardware remapping for the location of
those keys.

> On my keyboard the keys are labeled (center to left) space, command, alt/option,
> control, function.  Depending on Emacs version the Meta key seems to change between
> Command and Option, I tend to adapt.  However, I am getting to like using option

C* The new idea is to dissociate what is actually written on a particular keyboard.
We name the Modifier Keys as "Control, Alternate Control, Hyper, Shift, Super".
Then associate the names to what one actual has printed on the keyboard.  One can
use xev and xmodmap for that.  Example, one can say Alternate Control is "Alt"
on Peter's Keyboard whilst it is "Meta" or "Esc" on Shirley's Keyboard.  Whilst
the Alternate Control Key is "Option" on Frances' Keyboard.

> As far as I know the Function key is an OS-level key that modifies the keystrokes
> sent to the application, bnut I could be wrong.

C*  There are two key codes associated with each key, one communicates with Applications,
whilst the other communicates with the Hardware.  They are different codes.


---------------------
Christopher Dimech
Chief Administrator - Naiad Informatics - GNU Project (Geocomputation)
- Geophysical Simulation
- Geological Subsurface Mapping
- Disaster Preparedness and Mitigation
- Natural Resource Exploration and Production
- Free Software Advocacy


> Sent: Sunday, October 25, 2020 at 9:12 PM
> From: "Francis Belliveau" <f.belliveau@comcast.net>
> To: No recipient address
> Cc: "Help Gnu Emacs" <help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org>
> Subject: Re: Modifier Keys and the Archaic Meta Key
>
>
>
> > On Oct 25, 2020, at 09:46, Christopher Dimech <dimech@gmx.com> wrote:
> >
> > Rather than referring to the five principal Modifier Key,
> > immediately by Key Mnemonics, it is more useful to have
> > a name for them categorised by priority.
> >
> > The Five Principal Modifier Keys can be called Control,
> > Alternate, Hyper, Shift, Super, then associate any mnemonic
> > one wants (Ctrl, Ctl) (Meta, Alt, Esc).
>
> It seems to me that only makes sense on your keyboard, not mine.
> I have no problem with allowing users the ability to define other modifier keys, but
> that would likely require the underlying code to support more morifier bits that is
> does currently.

C* One can split Ctrl_L from Ctrl_R (and Alt_L from Alt_R, ... etc).

> > It is recognised that the Control Modifier Key and the
> > Meta Modifier Key are exclusively and most widely used
> > Modifier Keys for Emacs Built-In Keybindings.  Consequently
> > I group them together, one call it Control, whilst the other
> > as Alternate Control.  It makes the use of key much more precise.
> >
> > Consequently the Alternate Control Modifier Key would simply
> > be associated with Alt, but to the key as Priority 2, which
> > can be Alt, Esc, etc.
>
> That seems like adding a lot of words with no real value-added.  If there are no keyboards in existance today with a key labeled Meta, then the meaning is clear that it is the other modifier key without needing to resort to excessive verbosity.
>
> > I agree of the utility of possibly more Modifier Keys.  However, sticking
> > with officially Five Major Modifier Key for now is adequate.  I customarily
> > use Mechanical Keyboards with Colemak Key Variation, and have to rebind certain
> > Key Sequences that are built-in into Emacs.  I also remap the order of keys
> > from (C, s, M) to (s, M, C).  In this way priority increases from right to
> > left.  The C Key is mapped to the key immediately to the left of the space bar
> > as in the original setup of the Lisp Keyboards.  However I do not simply switch
> > the Meta and Control Key as many have done, but organise the Keymaps by priority
> > going outward.
> >
>
> On my keyboard the keys are labeled (center to left) space, command, alt/option, control, function.
> Depending on Emacs version the Meta key seems to change between Command and Option, I tend to adapt.  However, I am getting to like using option since it is distinct from the OS use of command. Option seems to be an application-specific modifier whereas Command has OS utility.  As far as I know the Function key is an OS-level key that modifies the keystrokes sent to the application, bnut I could be wrong.
>
> Fran
>
>
>
>

Re: Modifier Keys and the Archaic Meta Key

[pillule]

I spent myself some time in the xkb configurations files. Alt and Meta
are two different ~keysyms~ so we can attribute them a different
Modifier. How Emacs interpret theses two specifically seems
configurable inside the modifier map if not inside Emacs due to this
confusion between old terminals and now (I read someone have already
done it but don't remember the post. sorry).

There is 8 slots for modifiers. More for Virtual Modifiers (but
haven't played with theses yet and so I don't know if we can use them
as a way to extend the numbers of modifiers).  Control Shift Caps_Lock
occupy the three first ones (I must yet try to use a Shift lock, and
to attribute something else to the Caps_Lock slot...)

The five others let users do some customisations but generally there is
already :
Alt / Meta on the same row
Super
Num_Lock
ISO_Level3_Shift (aka Alt_gr) for europeans symbols
eventually  ISO_Level5_Shift for even more layers of symbols.

Personally I cheat by putting the level5 on Num_Lock and so free
place for hyper.

But that's not all, there also indeed the group's modifiers and the
controls keys such as Overlay1_Enable which can be used to
dramatically increase the number of viables combinaisons.

1. There are multiples possibilities to define a keysym on a key ( 8
   layers or even more, 4 groups, 1 overlay )
2. We can Set/Latch/Lock/Redirect _multiple_ modifiers and/or a key at
   the same time
3. We can basically choose to define, let's say, Control_R+E to
   C-H-M-A-S-s-<down> if it is our pleasure.

XKB is somehow flexible.

I think thenumber of possibles and viables combinaisons is already far
beyond the mortals needs.

Re: Modifier Keys and the Archaic Meta Key

[pillule]

Hi, I spent myself some time in the xkb configurations files, 

Alt and Meta are two different ~keysyms~ so we can attribute them 
a
different Modifier.
How Emacs interpret theses two specifically seems configurable 
inside
the modifier map if not inside Emacs due to this confusion between 
old
terminals and now (I read someone have already done it but don't
remember the post. sorry).

There is 8 slots for modifiers. More for Virtual Modifiers (but
haven't played with theses yet and so I don't know if we can use 
them
as a way to dramatically extend our modifiers).  Control Shift
Caps_Lock occupy the three first ones. 

The five others let users do some customisations but generally 
there is
already :
Alt / Meta on the same row
Super
Num_Lock
ISO_Level3_Shift (aka Alt_gr) for europeans symbols
ISO_Level5_Shift eventually for even more layers of symbols.

Personally I cheat by putting the level5 on Num_Lock and so free
place for hyper.

But that's not all, there also indeed the group's modifiers and 
the
controls keys such as Overlay1_Enable which can be used to
dramatically increase the number of keys's combinaisons.

Finally, 
1. There are multiples possibilities to define a keysym on a key ( 
8
   layers or even more, 4 groups, 1 overlay )
2. There are possibilities to Set/Latch/Lock/Redirect _multiple_ 
modifiers
   and/or a key,  all on one key.
3. You can basically choose to define, let's say, Control_R+E to
   C-H-M-A-S-s-<down> if it is your pleasure.

XKB is somehow flexible. So, while it would be nice to have more
modifier available ... let's face it, you can already do pretty 
damn
things without any more of them.

You mentionned to be an user of the colemak layout, I warmly 
suggest you
to look at the sources of the extend mod to see some of theses 
things in
practice.
https://forum.colemak.com/topic/1438-dreymars-big-bag-of-keyboard-tricks-linuxxkb-files-included/

Cheers.

Christopher Dimech <dimech@gmx.com> writes:

>> It seems to me that only makes sense on your keyboard, not 
>> mine.
>> I have no problem with allowing users the ability to define 
>> other modifier keys,
>> but that would likely require the underlying code to support 
>> more morifier bits
>> that is does currently.
>
> C* I was just discussing the customary modifier keys 
> historically associated with
> Emacs.  There are five: {C,M,S,H,s}.
>
>> > Consequently the Alternate Control Modifier Key would simply
>> > be associated with Alt, but to the key as Priority 2, which
>> > can be Alt, Esc, etc.
>>
>> That seems like adding a lot of words with no real value-added. 
>> If there are
>> no keyboards in existance today > with a key labeled Meta, then 
>> the meaning is
>> clear that it is the other modifier key without needing to 
>> resort to excessive
>> verbosity.
>
> C* That is not always precise because Emacs also recognises the 
> Hyper and Super
> Keys as well, which I use - although using hardware remapping 
> for the location of
> those keys.
>
>> On my keyboard the keys are labeled (center to left) space, 
>> command, alt/option,
>> control, function.  Depending on Emacs version the Meta key 
>> seems to change between
>> Command and Option, I tend to adapt.  However, I am getting to 
>> like using option
>
> C* The new idea is to dissociate what is actually written on a 
> particular keyboard.
> We name the Modifier Keys as "Control, Alternate Control, Hyper, 
> Shift, Super".
> Then associate the names to what one actual has printed on the 
> keyboard.  One can
> use xev and xmodmap for that.  Example, one can say Alternate 
> Control is "Alt"
> on Peter's Keyboard whilst it is "Meta" or "Esc" on Shirley's 
> Keyboard.  Whilst
> the Alternate Control Key is "Option" on Frances' Keyboard.
>
>> As far as I know the Function key is an OS-level key that 
>> modifies the keystrokes
>> sent to the application, bnut I could be wrong.
>
> C*  There are two key codes associated with each key, one 
> communicates with Applications,
> whilst the other communicates with the Hardware.  They are 
> different codes.
>
>
> ---------------------
> Christopher Dimech
> Chief Administrator - Naiad Informatics - GNU Project 
> (Geocomputation)
> - Geophysical Simulation
> - Geological Subsurface Mapping
> - Disaster Preparedness and Mitigation
> - Natural Resource Exploration and Production
> - Free Software Advocacy
>
>
>> Sent: Sunday, October 25, 2020 at 9:12 PM
>> From: "Francis Belliveau" <f.belliveau@comcast.net>
>> To: No recipient address
>> Cc: "Help Gnu Emacs" <help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org>
>> Subject: Re: Modifier Keys and the Archaic Meta Key
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Oct 25, 2020, at 09:46, Christopher Dimech 
>> > <dimech@gmx.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > Rather than referring to the five principal Modifier Key,
>> > immediately by Key Mnemonics, it is more useful to have
>> > a name for them categorised by priority.
>> >
>> > The Five Principal Modifier Keys can be called Control,
>> > Alternate, Hyper, Shift, Super, then associate any mnemonic
>> > one wants (Ctrl, Ctl) (Meta, Alt, Esc).
>>
>> It seems to me that only makes sense on your keyboard, not 
>> mine.
>> I have no problem with allowing users the ability to define 
>> other modifier keys, but
>> that would likely require the underlying code to support more 
>> morifier bits that is
>> does currently.
>
> C* One can split Ctrl_L from Ctrl_R (and Alt_L from Alt_R, ... 
> etc).
>
>> > It is recognised that the Control Modifier Key and the
>> > Meta Modifier Key are exclusively and most widely used
>> > Modifier Keys for Emacs Built-In Keybindings.  Consequently
>> > I group them together, one call it Control, whilst the other
>> > as Alternate Control.  It makes the use of key much more 
>> > precise.
>> >
>> > Consequently the Alternate Control Modifier Key would simply
>> > be associated with Alt, but to the key as Priority 2, which
>> > can be Alt, Esc, etc.
>>
>> That seems like adding a lot of words with no real value-added. 
>> If there are no keyboards in existance today with a key labeled 
>> Meta, then the meaning is clear that it is the other modifier 
>> key without needing to resort to excessive verbosity.
>>
>> > I agree of the utility of possibly more Modifier Keys. 
>> > However, sticking
>> > with officially Five Major Modifier Key for now is adequate. 
>> > I customarily
>> > use Mechanical Keyboards with Colemak Key Variation, and have 
>> > to rebind certain
>> > Key Sequences that are built-in into Emacs.  I also remap the 
>> > order of keys
>> > from (C, s, M) to (s, M, C).  In this way priority increases 
>> > from right to
>> > left.  The C Key is mapped to the key immediately to the left 
>> > of the space bar
>> > as in the original setup of the Lisp Keyboards.  However I do 
>> > not simply switch
>> > the Meta and Control Key as many have done, but organise the 
>> > Keymaps by priority
>> > going outward.
>> >
>>
>> On my keyboard the keys are labeled (center to left) space, 
>> command, alt/option, control, function.
>> Depending on Emacs version the Meta key seems to change between 
>> Command and Option, I tend to adapt.  However, I am getting to 
>> like using option since it is distinct from the OS use of 
>> command. Option seems to be an application-specific modifier 
>> whereas Command has OS utility.  As far as I know the Function 
>> key is an OS-level key that modifies the keystrokes sent to the 
>> application, bnut I could be wrong.
>>
>> Fran
>>
>>
>>
>>


--

Re: Modifier Keys and the Archaic Meta Key

[Vladimir Sedach]

Christopher Dimech <dimech@gmx.com> writes:
> Today, Lisp Machines and their keyboards are only historical
> keyboards whose use has become academic.

On the contrary - ever since Microsoft introduced extra modifier keys
with the Microsoft Natural Keyboard 104 key layout in 1994 (the only
decent thing I can think to have come from Microsoft), the Lisp
Machine style key bindings and mnemonics became relevant for PCs. The
Lisp Machine style keyboard layout simply provides a better ergonomic
experience, not just for Emacs, but for all programs that make use of
the Control key. It is straightforward to configure the layout for
any PC keyboard. Give it a try:

https://oneofus.la/have-emacs-will-hack/2018-04-08-lisp-machine-keyboard-layout-in-x11.html

--
Vladimir Sedach
Software engineering services in Los Angeles https://oneofus.la

Re: Modifier Keys and the Archaic Meta Key

[Christopher Dimech]

---------------------
Christopher Dimech
Chief Administrator - Naiad Informatics - GNU Project (Geocomputation)
- Geophysical Simulation
- Geological Subsurface Mapping
- Disaster Preparedness and Mitigation
- Natural Resource Exploration and Production
- Free Software Advocacy


> Sent: Sunday, October 25, 2020 at 9:40 PM
> From: "Vladimir Sedach" <vas@oneofus.la>
> To: "Christopher Dimech" <dimech@gmx.com>
> Cc: help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org
> Subject: Re: Modifier Keys and the Archaic Meta Key
>
>
> Christopher Dimech <dimech@gmx.com> writes:
> > Today, Lisp Machines and their keyboards are only historical
> > keyboards whose use has become academic.
>
> On the contrary - ever since Microsoft introduced extra modifier keys
> with the Microsoft Natural Keyboard 104 key layout in 1994 (the only
> decent thing I can think to have come from Microsoft), the Lisp
> Machine style key bindings and mnemonics became relevant for PCs. The
> Lisp Machine style keyboard layout simply provides a better ergonomic
> experience, not just for Emacs, but for all programs that make use of
> the Control key. It is straightforward to configure the layout for
> any PC keyboard. Give it a try:

C* I fully agree with you. Some of use change they key-mapping to the
original position of Lisp Machine Keyboards - i.e. with Ctrl closest
to the Space Bar.


>
> https://oneofus.la/have-emacs-will-hack/2018-04-08-lisp-machine-keyboard-layout-in-x11.html
>
> --
> Vladimir Sedach
> Software engineering services in Los Angeles https://oneofus.la
>
>

RE: Modifier Keys and the Archaic Meta Key

[Drew Adams]

There's nothing wrong with discussing this in this
mailing list, AFAIK.  But this list is more for
questions from Emacs users.

If you'd like to affect Emacs development or engage
more users who are interested in Emacs development,
then the mailing list emacs-devel@gnu.org might be
more appropriate.

(In any case, please don't send to more than one list.)

Re: RE: Modifier Keys and the Archaic Meta Key

[Christopher Dimech]

Thank you so very much Andrew.  Initially, the discussion is intended
towards Emacs users.  More experienced users and those in devel are
comfortable enough with the customary ways.  Will keep the discussion
open for some time, and get a set of conclusions.  Then send a list
for technical assessment in emacs-devel@gnu.org later.

Regards
Christopher


---------------------
Christopher Dimech
General Administrator - GNU Project (Geocomputation) - Naiad Informatics
- Geophysical Simulation
- Geological Subsurface Mapping
- Disaster Preparedness and Mitigation
- Natural Resource Exploration and Production
- Free Software Advocacy


> Sent: Sunday, October 25, 2020 at 10:41 PM
> From: "Drew Adams" <drew.adams@oracle.com>
> To: "Christopher Dimech" <dimech@gmx.com>, "Vladimir Sedach" <vas@oneofus.la>
> Cc: help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org
> Subject: RE: Modifier Keys and the Archaic Meta Key
>
> There's nothing wrong with discussing this in this
> mailing list, AFAIK.  But this list is more for
> questions from Emacs users.
>
> If you'd like to affect Emacs development or engage
> more users who are interested in Emacs development,
> then the mailing list emacs-devel@gnu.org might be
> more appropriate.
>
> (In any case, please don't send to more than one list.)
>
>