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: Binding M-n and M-p to forward-paragraph and backward-paragraphrespectively Date: Sat, 9 Apr 2011 12:26:45 -0700 Message-ID: <3F8DEC90BBA94708866F7CC70C4D5067@us.oracle.com> References: <7C30351A-8431-44CA-BBEF-06AC0E509EBC@mit.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1302377219 32661 80.91.229.12 (9 Apr 2011 19:26:59 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 9 Apr 2011 19:26:59 +0000 (UTC) Cc: 'Emacs-Devel devel' To: "'chad'" Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sat Apr 09 21:26:55 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 1Q8do6-0008Rl-RA for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sat, 09 Apr 2011 21:26:55 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:41226 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Q8do6-0003bQ-21 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sat, 09 Apr 2011 15:26:54 -0400 Original-Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=52112 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Q8dny-0003ZF-4d for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 09 Apr 2011 15:26:46 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Q8dnx-0004Dc-Bf for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 09 Apr 2011 15:26:46 -0400 Original-Received: from rcsinet10.oracle.com ([148.87.113.121]:62442) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Q8dnx-0004DW-4H for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 09 Apr 2011 15:26:45 -0400 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 p39JQgnZ026944 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Sat, 9 Apr 2011 19:26:43 GMT Original-Received: from acsmt358.oracle.com (acsmt358.oracle.com [141.146.40.158]) by rcsinet15.oracle.com (Switch-3.4.2/Switch-3.4.1) with ESMTP id p39JQfdb008819 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Sat, 9 Apr 2011 19:26:42 GMT Original-Received: from abhmt002.oracle.com (abhmt002.oracle.com [141.146.116.11]) by acsmt358.oracle.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id p39JQfl7022412; Sat, 9 Apr 2011 14:26:41 -0500 Original-Received: from dradamslap1 (/10.159.37.106) by default (Oracle Beehive Gateway v4.0) with ESMTP ; Sat, 09 Apr 2011 12:26:40 -0700 X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11 In-reply-to: <7C30351A-8431-44CA-BBEF-06AC0E509EBC@mit.edu> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.5994 Thread-Index: Acv26aXRSQEQpK30Q2ioAJkYrWcoawAAY9Lg X-Source-IP: acsmt358.oracle.com [141.146.40.158] X-Auth-Type: Internal IP X-CT-RefId: str=0001.0A090209.4DA0B2F2.0052:SCFSTAT5015188,ss=1,fgs=0 X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 3) X-Received-From: 148.87.113.121 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:138335 Archived-At: > >> the idea that we shouldn't add new bindings because then > >> someone in the future might think that those bindings are > >> somehow `special' - and that we might want them to think > >> otherwise - is a rather extreme combination of straw-man and > >> absurdity. > > > > It is neither straw man nor absurdity. And it is not just > > an idea. The last go-round about binding some (function) > > key by default clearly demonstrated this: The discussion > > had not even finished, and no decision had yet been reached, > > before some were sending in posts that indicated that they > > understood that the key was _reserved_ and should not be > > changed by users or 3rd-party libraries. > > Yes, where as this is a binding that is clearly intended to > be changed by users and 3rd-party libraries. No, that was true also in the other case, as it is in most cases where a binding is explicitly only for _default_ behavior. That's the point: Some people _mis_understand, thinking that the existence of a default binding means that the binding is in some way reserved. And as I mentioned, the more a default key gets used commonly, the more people shy away from rebinding it. Creating a default binding is not without behavioral consequences.