From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: "Drew Adams" Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: RE: Bikeshedding go! Why is unbound? Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2011 12:31:55 -0800 Message-ID: <315B881CD79A43A9BABD5145EF4BFFE6@us.oracle.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1295296350 5726 80.91.229.12 (17 Jan 2011 20:32:30 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2011 20:32:30 +0000 (UTC) Cc: monnier@iro.umontreal.ca, pj@irregularexpressions.net, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Mon Jan 17 21:32:26 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 1PevkY-0005n4-3M for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 17 Jan 2011 21:32:26 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:34891 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1PevkX-0003uS-ED for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 17 Jan 2011 15:32:25 -0500 Original-Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=40074 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1PevkO-0003t0-Ak for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 17 Jan 2011 15:32:17 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1PevkN-0002Wo-Bl for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 17 Jan 2011 15:32:16 -0500 Original-Received: from rcsinet10.oracle.com ([148.87.113.121]:52146) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1PevkN-0002Wf-6o for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 17 Jan 2011 15:32:15 -0500 Original-Received: from rcsinet15.oracle.com (rcsinet15.oracle.com [148.87.113.117]) by rcsinet10.oracle.com (Switch-3.4.2/Switch-3.4.2) with ESMTP id p0HKWAog019418 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Mon, 17 Jan 2011 20:32:11 GMT Original-Received: from acsmt354.oracle.com (acsmt354.oracle.com [141.146.40.154]) by rcsinet15.oracle.com (Switch-3.4.2/Switch-3.4.1) with ESMTP id p0HKW8I1017868; Mon, 17 Jan 2011 20:32:08 GMT Original-Received: from abhmt017.oracle.com by acsmt353.oracle.com with ESMTP id 932083831295296315; Mon, 17 Jan 2011 12:31:55 -0800 Original-Received: from dradamslap1 (/10.159.220.70) by default (Oracle Beehive Gateway v4.0) with ESMTP ; Mon, 17 Jan 2011 12:31:54 -0800 X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.5994 Thread-Index: Acu2fLF6XE+o30lvQfyYDNYS1hKacgAAjvogAAGZ2hA= X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 3) 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:134664 Archived-At: > > So far it seems to have been agreed that in any case=20 > > (whatever is done or not done) both users and libraries > > should feel free to bind M-f4 in Emacs. >=20 > This is a misunderstanding. We have not even been discussing this. No > one has said that users and libraries should not be able to bind M-f4. I don't know what the misunderstanding is. You seem to be in violent = agreement. We are both saying that it is agreed by all that users and libraries = should be able to bind M-f4 in Emacs. If you agree, then in your words, "how both users and libraries could = decide on this"? The answer to that applies also to how both can decide about the behavior of unbound M-f4 (whether to raise an error or pass to Windows). > >> >> No one has suggested that Alt+F4 should be hardcoded to be > >> >> sent to w32. > >> > > >> > Odd that you would say this just after you asked what other > >> > behavior could possibly exist. > >> > >> Could you please be a bit more exact in your questions? > > > > See what you wrote at the top. =A0You've made it very clear=20 > > that you want Alt+f4 hard-coded to pass through to Windows > > when unbound in Emacs. >=20 > Please do not try to win by dismissing important details, it is > useless and wastes our time. You are mixing to very different things > here. No idea what you're talking about. What details? What two things? You stated both (a) "Yes, I actually do prefer #3 hard-coded" and (b) = "No one has suggested that Alt+F4 should be hardcoded to be sent to w32." (The = latter was in the context of handling an _unbound_ key.) You are someone, not = no one. I think (but am not sure at this point) that your position is (a): you = want to hard-code the behavior that unbound Alt+F4/M-f4 should always be sent to = w32.