From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: jasonr@f2s.com Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: RE: Bikeshedding go! Why is unbound? Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2011 08:06:25 +0000 Message-ID: <1295337985.4d354a01e6144@webmail.freedom2surf.net> References: <87sjx7z7w4.fsf@telefonica.net> <83pqsbmf6j.fsf@gnu.org> <87k4ijz07h.fsf@telefonica.net> <2460D97DEA4047B3B9DF92C4A80981EF@us.oracle.com> <57BF13882D6E494286547F293FE9D03B@us.oracle.com> <87lj2pfo81.fsf@wanadoo.es> <3311B7BF884147FFB4ADD5FEB31F1F39@us.oracle.com> <227F94B0AC1649C1A41082A24! 9921783@us.oracle.com > <3BA19D85DE954C00B3CC7A7C8A0BD32C@us.oracle.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1295338001 10798 80.91.229.12 (18 Jan 2011 08:06:41 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2011 08:06:41 +0000 (UTC) Cc: 'Lennart Borgman' , 'Stefan Monnier' , 'PJ Weisberg' , 'Emacs-Devel devel' To: Drew Adams Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Tue Jan 18 09:06:37 2011 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Pf6aK-0007gX-33 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 18 Jan 2011 09:06:36 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:43042 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Pf6aJ-0000xS-7y for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 18 Jan 2011 03:06:35 -0500 Original-Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=41257 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Pf6aE-0000xK-OC for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 18 Jan 2011 03:06:32 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Pf6aD-0007Hu-8k for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 18 Jan 2011 03:06:30 -0500 Original-Received: from mk-outboundfilter-6-a-3.mail.uk.tiscali.com ([212.74.114.22]:49512) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Pf6aD-0007HF-46 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 18 Jan 2011 03:06:29 -0500 Original-X-Trace: 285957601/mk-outboundfilter-6.mail.uk.tiscali.com/F2S/$F2S-MX-ACCEPTED/f2s-freedom2surf-infrastructure/194.106.33.239/None/jasonr@f2s.com X-SBRS: None X-RemoteIP: 194.106.33.239 X-IP-MAIL-FROM: jasonr@f2s.com X-SMTP-AUTH: X-Originating-Country: GB/UNITED KINGDOM X-MUA: Internet Messaging Program (IMP) 3.2.3 X-IP-BHB: Once X-IP-Webmail: TRUE X-IP-Webmail: TRUE X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AhkOAPnYNE3CaiHv/2dsb2JhbACkR4EBwlCFUASONg X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.60,338,1291593600"; d="scan'208";a="285957601" X-IP-Direction: IN Original-Received: from mail5.freedom2surf.net (HELO webmail1.freedom2surf.net) ([194.106.33.239]) by smtp.f2s.tiscali.co.uk with ESMTP; 18 Jan 2011 08:06:26 +0000 Original-Received: from localhost (i-194-106-33-239 [127.0.0.1]) by webmail1.freedom2surf.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id F3393228828; Tue, 18 Jan 2011 08:06:25 +0000 (GMT) Original-Received: from 61.4.103.130 ([61.4.103.130]) by webmail.freedom2surf.net (IMP) with HTTP for ; Tue, 18 Jan 2011 08:06:25 +0000 In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Internet Messaging Program (IMP) 3.2.3 X-Originating-IP: 61.4.103.130 X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Genre and OS details not recognized. X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:134690 Archived-At: Quoting Drew Adams : > I don't want us to choose for the users which it should be. I want to let > users > and libraries decide what the behavior of Alt-f4 should be: let them choose > #1, > #2, or #3. Why not? Because Emacs is already too complicated for users to configure. It seems you are advocating making it more complicated purely for the vague notion that some hypothetical library might want to do something with keys that are unbound within Emacs, and hardcoding the behaviour of #3 would interfere with that for this one key (which is bound outside of Emacs).