Re: Modifier Keys and the Archaic Meta Key

[Christopher Dimech <dimech@gmx.com>]

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
>