From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Drew Adams Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: RE: Recentish C-s M-y change Date: Mon, 28 Dec 2020 22:14:40 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <0e331428-5924-4a3f-a270-8a9404969582@default> References: <87r1na4tyu.fsf@gnus.org> <87tus6tj7s.fsf@mail.linkov.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="23756"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" Cc: larsi@gnus.org, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: rms@gnu.org, Juri Linkov Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Tue Dec 29 07:15:50 2020 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@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 1ku8IP-00063Z-Q0 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Tue, 29 Dec 2020 07:15:49 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:49546 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1ku8IO-0005lX-M7 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Tue, 29 Dec 2020 01:15:48 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:51178) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1ku8HY-00054C-3m for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 29 Dec 2020 01:14:56 -0500 Original-Received: from aserp2120.oracle.com ([141.146.126.78]:40558) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1ku8HU-0006Kp-U5; Tue, 29 Dec 2020 01:14:55 -0500 Original-Received: from pps.filterd (aserp2120.oracle.com [127.0.0.1]) by aserp2120.oracle.com (8.16.0.42/8.16.0.42) with SMTP id 0BT6EYvl122429; Tue, 29 Dec 2020 06:14:47 GMT DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=oracle.com; h=mime-version : message-id : date : from : sender : to : cc : subject : references : in-reply-to : content-type : content-transfer-encoding; s=corp-2020-01-29; bh=1fLkjB3T5wVNkz2FxHHug9kUzoeig+Vv3jYo35YaW5g=; b=rkboBCocBNVzk9r86KCxqWNU11A0orOlDMnCnnK7d6B8r2X+LawiNr1O4LXaN9jVV2Dn eWeKLe3KR887oyaD4LpCpjWWtFexnnoT2kd04zIxQTxRxl02UC579o4OalYJHu/JqM9m 5hRFiUkhWw6XP1QZL8SDNskfhqZ5hP+hApKHQ5L8IXMnd6mQcutIRdxk2CwOU2V/MBO4 HTQajQSl64Tcf5Gv9Oakl5GDwWfIIkBs47hT4QTXKbADosmlZ05BgJSuzbRe4V48KUvu 1EitRm16BISwChY99BNJBJ5mk0e/Y22oAgogSfp2vcbo2sqoqRnN5EftdNOpv1GLhaPa qw== Original-Received: from userp3030.oracle.com (userp3030.oracle.com [156.151.31.80]) by aserp2120.oracle.com with ESMTP id 35phm1c83h-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=FAIL); Tue, 29 Dec 2020 06:14:47 +0000 Original-Received: from pps.filterd (userp3030.oracle.com [127.0.0.1]) by userp3030.oracle.com (8.16.0.42/8.16.0.42) with SMTP id 0BT6AuMj021732; Tue, 29 Dec 2020 06:14:46 GMT Original-Received: from aserv0122.oracle.com (aserv0122.oracle.com [141.146.126.236]) by userp3030.oracle.com with ESMTP id 35pf3w8q4h-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Tue, 29 Dec 2020 06:14:46 +0000 Original-Received: from abhmp0016.oracle.com (abhmp0016.oracle.com [141.146.116.22]) by aserv0122.oracle.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id 0BT6EfZd005356; Tue, 29 Dec 2020 06:14:41 GMT In-Reply-To: X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Oracle Beehive Extensions for Outlook 2.0.1.9.1 (1003210) [OL 16.0.5095.0 (x86)] X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=nai engine=6000 definitions=9848 signatures=668683 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=notspam policy=default score=0 mlxscore=0 malwarescore=0 adultscore=0 mlxlogscore=999 suspectscore=0 spamscore=0 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.12.0-2009150000 definitions=main-2012290037 X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=nai engine=6000 definitions=9848 signatures=668683 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=notspam policy=default score=0 suspectscore=0 priorityscore=1501 mlxscore=0 mlxlogscore=999 adultscore=0 bulkscore=0 malwarescore=0 spamscore=0 impostorscore=0 phishscore=0 clxscore=1015 lowpriorityscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.12.0-2009150000 definitions=main-2012290037 Received-SPF: pass client-ip=141.146.126.78; envelope-from=drew.adams@oracle.com; helo=aserp2120.oracle.com X-Spam_score_int: -44 X-Spam_score: -4.5 X-Spam_bar: ---- X-Spam_report: (-4.5 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.178, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, GAPPY_SUBJECT=0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: "Emacs-devel" Xref: news.gmane.io gmane.emacs.devel:262053 Archived-At: > > This has been discussed many times, and the most promising solution i= s > > to add a single variable that will define whether the user prohibits > > changing the definitions of traditional keys. >=20 > I think that is a bad approach, and here is why. >=20 > Various changes are made in the Emacs user interface. Occasionally > there is one I find inconvenient and want to avoid. But not all of > them. Probably not most of them. >=20 > I want options to undo the changes I don't like, but I don't > want that to imply rejecting _all_ changes in a blanket way. >=20 > Now, if there are people who would like the ability to say, "Give me > the Emacs 26 user interface," I don't object to offering it. We could > have a mechanism to associate user interface changes with major versions > and then let users choose a version. >=20 > But this is not a substitute for letting people disable specific > changes independently -- those changes which need it. Some changes > are easy to revert by setting a key binding, and they don't need > an option. >=20 > We could pay attention to implementing a change, when possible, in a > way that would make it easy to revert by setting a key binding or an > option. In other words, think in advance about the possibility that > some people may not like the change. This is exactly what I think those of us - I, at least - who've not appreciated some such changes, would like to say. Thank you for saying it clearly.