From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Gregory Heytings Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.help Subject: Re: PROPOSAL: Repurpose one key (why only one?) and reserve it for third-party packages Date: Sat, 20 Feb 2021 17:50:31 +0000 Message-ID: References: <87pn0z12rt.fsf@robertthorpeconsulting.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=us-ascii Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="32471"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" Cc: help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org To: Robert Thorpe Original-X-From: help-gnu-emacs-bounces+geh-help-gnu-emacs=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Sat Feb 20 18:51:30 2021 Return-path: Envelope-to: geh-help-gnu-emacs@m.gmane-mx.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([209.51.188.17]) by ciao.gmane.io with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1lDWPi-0008L5-Kk for geh-help-gnu-emacs@m.gmane-mx.org; Sat, 20 Feb 2021 18:51:30 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:53356 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lDWPh-0004O1-MR for geh-help-gnu-emacs@m.gmane-mx.org; Sat, 20 Feb 2021 12:51:29 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:35716) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lDWOt-0004NH-SG for help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sat, 20 Feb 2021 12:50:40 -0500 Original-Received: from heytings.org ([95.142.160.155]:59968) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lDWOn-0000O3-Ks for help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sat, 20 Feb 2021 12:50:37 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=heytings.org; s=20210101; t=1613843431; bh=kATpnVfLKB5yfu4TBV1rRggB1oM1IAMoReaLVisxcuM=; h=Date:From:To:cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:Message-ID:References:From; b=l1BBCyh4JNhE8H3YnrHNDO6i1GwMXTDhsLnZObV02wGC7WK7S7/KLorvrJduvWvMB 4Dk1/3xLeccR8lAqjQGmSArOjsmfbDhrIspYlewQFrEFUt1X9ElIlUZUaaInZRVbsm 9VEgO2WnnQqnktvLKs4NT+uNca6kFa+glYRoh4W76k1cn2YosbEfgntQb+rXUwD4C1 j4I5pHJcNB5AqDS+8/pUupo4ANvCE1TFcoSIipvL/NACR2s0SDO3mMi8I0CIgXtX33 jONn3Y0Usl3CkUorTa3atSnPFh7eudp6woWCh1Z7IAuY7rNPr4cdkMOjBz9hL7nl3u 1JiEdHd9qHH8g== In-Reply-To: <87pn0z12rt.fsf@robertthorpeconsulting.com> Received-SPF: pass client-ip=95.142.160.155; envelope-from=gregory@heytings.org; helo=heytings.org X-Spam_score_int: -20 X-Spam_score: -2.1 X-Spam_bar: -- X-Spam_report: (-2.1 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action X-BeenThere: help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23 Precedence: list List-Id: Users list for the GNU Emacs text editor List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: help-gnu-emacs-bounces+geh-help-gnu-emacs=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: "help-gnu-emacs" Xref: news.gmane.io gmane.emacs.help:128151 Archived-At: >>> I'm not sure I understand your point here. Any single key that's >>> picked will have a similar limitation. >> >> With a single key you indeed have a limitation, but it's the limitation >> of the keyboard, not an arbirary one. You have full access to all >> letters, all digits, all symbols, combined or not with the control >> and/or meta modifier. That's a lot more than 26 or 52 keys. > > I see what you mean but I don't think it's a huge difference. Most > desktop keyboards have ~104 keys. And some of those can't be > differentiated from each other by Emacs. Laptop keyboards usually have > fewer, mine has 81. > Indeed, and when you combine these with the control and/or meta and/or shift modifier you have ~400 possible keys. Which means that with two prefix keys you have ~800 possible keys. The main point is that third-party packages are first-class citizens and should get all possible keys, not an arbitrary subset. >>> For example, let's suppose that M-o is picked. That's my favourite, I >>> know you don't like it. >> >> It's in the proposal, it would be a perfect choice, together with C-o. > > I think C-o is a terrible idea. Open-line is a very useful command. > The proposal explicitly mentions that open-line would remain bound to C-o C-o. That's three key presses instead of two. And if you think that open-line is so important in your workflow that pressing three keys instead of two is really not possible, you can of course always bind open-line to C-o in your init file, and move the third-party library keymap that would be on C-o somewhere else.