Why are <next> and <prior> not called <page down> and <page up>?

Why are <next> and <prior> not called <page down> and <page up>?

[Lennart Borgman]

Why does not key-description use the names <page down> and <page up>? Is 
not that what most computer users expect?

Re: Why are <next> and <prior> not called <page down> and <page up>?

[Stefan Monnier]

> Why does not key-description use the names <page down> and <page up>?

'Cause X11 calls them `prior' and `next'?


        Stefan

Re: Why are <next> and <prior> not called <page down> and <page up>?

[Jason Rumney]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 768 bytes --]

Stefan Monnier wrote:
>> Why does not key-description use the names <page down> and <page up>?
>>     
>
> 'Cause X11 calls them `prior' and `next'?
>   
As does MS Windows at the API level, but these messages are intended for 
end users, not programmers, so it is better to follow how the keys are 
labelled on the majority of modern keyboards than the names used in the 
header files.

Personally, the last time I saw these keys labelled Next and Prior was 
in 1992. Since then, every keyboard I have used has labelled them Page 
Up/Page Down or PgUp/PgDn or some other abbreviation.

But I wouldn't suggest changing this until after the release, as it 
probably affects lots of documentation, even if we keep the old names as 
aliases for backwards compatibility.


[-- Attachment #1.2: Type: text/html, Size: 1183 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 142 bytes --]

_______________________________________________
Emacs-devel mailing list
Emacs-devel@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-devel

Re: Why are <next> and <prior> not called <page down> and <page up>?

[Lennart Borgman]

Jason Rumney wrote:
> Stefan Monnier wrote:
>>> Why does not key-description use the names <page down> and <page up>?
>>>     
>>
>> 'Cause X11 calls them `prior' and `next'?
>>   
> As does MS Windows at the API level, but these messages are intended 
> for end users, not programmers, so it is better to follow how the keys 
> are labelled on the majority of modern keyboards than the names used 
> in the header files.
>
> Personally, the last time I saw these keys labelled Next and Prior was 
> in 1992. Since then, every keyboard I have used has labelled them Page 
> Up/Page Down or PgUp/PgDn or some other abbreviation.
>
> But I wouldn't suggest changing this until after the release, as it 
> probably affects lots of documentation, even if we keep the old names 
> as aliases for backwards compatibility.

I suggest changing them at once. 14 years is a long wait. I think 
changing this makes it much easier for new users.

Would it be terribly difficult to try to change it in the documentation?

RE: Why are <next> and <prior> not called <page down> and <page up>?

[Drew Adams]

    >>> Why does not key-description use the names <page down> and
    >>> <page up>?
    >>>
    >>
    >> 'Cause X11 calls them `prior' and `next'?
    >>
    > As does MS Windows at the API level, but these messages are intended
    > for end users, not programmers, so it is better to follow how
    > the keys are labelled on the majority of modern keyboards than the
    > names used in the header files.
    >
    > Personally, the last time I saw these keys labelled Next and
    > Prior was in 1992. Since then, every keyboard I have used has labelled
    > them Page Up/Page Down or PgUp/PgDn or some other abbreviation.
    >
    > But I wouldn't suggest changing this until after the release, as it
    > probably affects lots of documentation, even if we keep the old names
    > as aliases for backwards compatibility.

    I suggest changing them at once. 14 years is a long wait. I think
    changing this makes it much easier for new users.

    Would it be terribly difficult to try to change it in the documentation?

Sorry to disagree, but I don't think this is a good idea. I share the desire
to make things more user-friendly, and I agree that it would be good to
somehow indicate that the keys involved might be labeled Page Up and Page
Down (or PgUp and PgDn or...) on your keyboard, but <prior> and <next> are
standard names, which means that users can find things out about them (e.g.
Google).

What might help would be to explain in the doc (if this is not already done)
that <prior> and <next> often correspond to keys labeled Page Up and Page
Down. Beyond that, I think it's better for users to learn to recognize the
(standard) names of these keys.

A standard, however poorly named it might be, is an entry to lots of help on
the Internet. If you hide the standard name from users, then you hide that
key from users, leaving them locked out of useful information.

Also, this is not something that affects only the documentation; the UI
refers to these keys by their standard names - as it should, IMO.

Finally, "next" and "prior" are _not_ bad names for these keys, especially
for Emacs. The most common action associated with them (unmodified) is "next
_page_" and "prior _page_", but different Emacs buffers and functions can
give these next and prior keys different associations. The abstract notion
of "next" and "prior" (or previous or preceding) is what is important.

This is similar to the case for `up' and `down' (and `left' and `right').
Those keys are often labeled with arrows, but imagine if they, like Page Up,
were labeled Line Up and Line Down. The more generic names `up', `down',
`next', and `prior' are superior, precisely because they are more generic.
Add a modifier key, and Page Up might no longer mean "page up"; it might
mean "paragraph up" or something else. Or change Emacs modes, and Page Up
might mean "prior buffer" instead of prior line. You get the idea: it is
Page Down, not Next, that is, in fact, a bad name. Of course, we can't
change how keys are labeled...

Re: Why are <next> and <prior> not called <page down> and <page up>?

[Lennart Borgman]

Drew Adams wrote:
>     >>> Why does not key-description use the names <page down> and
>     >>> <page up>?
>   
...
>     I suggest changing them at once. 14 years is a long wait. I think
>     changing this makes it much easier for new users.
>
>     Would it be terribly difficult to try to change it in the documentation?
>
> Sorry to disagree, but I don't think this is a good idea. I share the desire
> to make things more user-friendly, and I agree that it would be good to
> somehow indicate that the keys involved might be labeled Page Up and Page
> Down (or PgUp and PgDn or...) on your keyboard, but <prior> and <next> are
> standard names, which means that users can find things out about them (e.g.
> Google).
>   
Why should we discuss if we do not disagree?;-)

Are you seriously saying that it is more simple to find something about 
the usage of these keys if you use "next" than "page down"? What is the 
context of the search then? I think most users do not know at all that 
"page down" is sometimes called "next".

Are those searches very technical? Would it not suffice then to point 
out in the manual that those keys are often called "next" etc? But for 
the beginners I think we should label then "page down"/pgdn or something 
similar. I remember I had trouble to understand what "next" etc was when 
I started using Emacs. Were they internal names for something etc?

RE: Why are <next> and <prior> not called <page down> and <page up>?

[Drew Adams]

    > <prior> and <next> are standard names, which means that users
    > can find things out about them (e.g. Google).

    Are you seriously saying that it is more simple to find something about
    the usage of these keys if you use "next" than "page down"?

Well, I don't know whether it is easier to search for one or the other. The
point is that one is a standard name, so _if_ you can find doc on it then
you have found doc about many things (e.g. apps) involving that key.

In terms of search, probably neither term is very helpful, and searching for
both would be necessary (and still not very fruitful). But if you do get
hold of the standard somehow, then you can find things out about those keys;
that's really what I meant.

    What is the context of the search then? I think most users do not
    know at all that "page down" is sometimes called "next".

And? Most users don't know that the `left' key is the left-arrow either.
Should we call it `<-'?

    Are those searches very technical? Would it not suffice then to point
    out in the manual that those keys are often called "next" etc?

Sure, that could go either way. But why not point to the standard name,
instead of pointing the standard name to a name that happenst to be printed
on many keyboards?

With your argument, we would not distinguish numeric keypad keys from the
identically labeled keys on the main keyboard pad. The keyboard labels only
get you so far; they don't get you to any technical info on the key
definitions (standard), and they aren't even sufficient to uniquely identify
keys.

And what about all the variants of the TAB key (ISO this and that, <tab> vs
C-i, etc.)? In terms of key labels, they might all be labeled "Tab", but
Emacs users must sometimes distinguish them.

Keyboard key labels are nice, and they are perhaps user friendly, but at
some point we need to say which standard key is behind the label. Emacs,
above all other apps (because it uses keys differently in diff modes, is
customizable, etc.), should refer to a standard name for what might be
labeled in one way or another on any particular keyboard.

    But for the beginners I think we should label then "page down"/pgdn or
    something similar. I remember I had trouble to understand what "next"
etc
    was when I started using Emacs. Were they internal names for something
etc?

Did you have trouble with `left' and `right'? Is it obvious which keys those
are? If not, should we rename them `<-' and `->' because that is closer to
what is shown on the keyboard keys? What about `Enter' and `Return'?
Keyboard labels are not such a great reference system - but we should
mention the commonly used labels in the doc.

Re: Why are <next> and <prior> not called <page down> and <page up>?

[Lennart Borgman]

Drew Adams wrote:
>     > <prior> and <next> are standard names, which means that users
>     > can find things out about them (e.g. Google).
>
>     Are you seriously saying that it is more simple to find something about
>     the usage of these keys if you use "next" than "page down"?
>
> Well, I don't know whether it is easier to search for one or the other. The
> point is that one is a standard name, so _if_ you can find doc on it then
> you have found doc about many things (e.g. apps) involving that key.
>   
Can you please explain what standard you refer to?

> And? Most users don't know that the `left' key is the left-arrow either.
> Should we call it `<-'?
>   
Are they not mostly called "left arrow" etc? Talking about them together 
as just "up, down, left, right" makes it rather easy to understand I 
guess. At least that was the case for me.

> With your argument, we would not distinguish numeric keypad keys from the
> identically labeled keys on the main keyboard pad. The keyboard labels only
> get you so far; they don't get you to any technical info on the key
> definitions (standard), and they aren't even sufficient to uniquely identify
> keys.
>   
Good point, but maybe stretched to far. Of course we should be clear enough.

> And what about all the variants of the TAB key (ISO this and that, <tab> vs
> C-i, etc.)? In terms of key labels, they might all be labeled "Tab", but
> Emacs users must sometimes distinguish them.
>   
Are you not mixing different levels here? Can't we be clear enough by 
just talking about the physical keyboard?

RE: Why are <next> and <prior> not called <page down> and <page up>?

[Drew Adams]

    >     > <prior> and <next> are standard names, which means that users
    >     > can find things out about them (e.g. Google).
    >
    >     Are you seriously saying that it is more simple to find
    >     something about
    >     the usage of these keys if you use "next" than "page down"?
    >
    > Well, I don't know whether it is easier to search for one or
    > the other. The point is that one is a standard name, so _if_
    > you can find doc on it then you have found doc about many things
    > (e.g. apps) involving that key.

    Can you please explain what standard you refer to?

Didn't Stefan mention X11?

    > And? Most users don't know that the `left' key is the
    > left-arrow either. Should we call it `<-'?

    Are they not mostly called "left arrow" etc? Talking about them
    together as just "up, down, left, right" makes it rather easy to
    understand I guess. At least that was the case for me.

And yet you had trouble getting from Page Down to Next?

Between the downward-pointing arrow (no label mentioning "down") and Page
Down, you guessed that the former was the same as the `down' key, and not
the latter? Good guess ;-).

    > With your argument, we would not distinguish numeric keypad
    > keys from the identically labeled keys on the main keyboard pad. The
    > keyboard labels only get you so far; they don't get you to any
    > technical info on the key definitions (standard), and they aren't
    > even sufficient to uniquely identify keys.

    Good point, but maybe stretched to far. Of course we should be
    clear enough.

To be clear, we need to give them unique names. And since they already have
unique names, from the standard, why not use those? And, then, why use those
standard names in some cases but not in others?

    > And what about all the variants of the TAB key (ISO this and
    > that, <tab> vs C-i, etc.)? In terms of key labels, they might all
    > be labeled "Tab", but Emacs users must sometimes distinguish them.

    Are you not mixing different levels here? Can't we be clear enough by
    just talking about the physical keyboard?

It's the signal sent by the physical key that's important, no? How can you
even tell if your keyboard has an `prior' key - do you just look for a Page
Up label? That might not be sufficient, depending on what that key is mapped
to.

I'm no expert on keys. It just seems to me that the proper response to this
issue is to document that the abstract keys `next' and `prior' are sometimes
labeled Page Down and Page Up on keyboards, and not to rename the abstract
keys to "Page Down" and "Page Up".

Re: Why are <next> and <prior> not called <page down> and <page up>?

[Lennart Borgman]

Drew Adams wrote:
>     >     > <prior> and <next> are standard names, which means that users
>     >     > can find things out about them (e.g. Google).
>     >
>     >     Are you seriously saying that it is more simple to find
>     >     something about
>     >     the usage of these keys if you use "next" than "page down"?
>     >
>     > Well, I don't know whether it is easier to search for one or
>     > the other. The point is that one is a standard name, so _if_
>     > you can find doc on it then you have found doc about many things
>     > (e.g. apps) involving that key.
>
>     Can you please explain what standard you refer to?
>
> Didn't Stefan mention X11?
>   
Thanks, but then we are talking about different levels. You refer to a 
technical level. I am more interested in what the user sees, the 
physical keyboard. I think it is easier to understand and remember for 
users if we refer to the physical keyboard. This is also very standard 
today.

>     Are they not mostly called "left arrow" etc? Talking about them
>     together as just "up, down, left, right" makes it rather easy to
>     understand I guess. At least that was the case for me.
>
> And yet you had trouble getting from Page Down to Next?
>   
Yes, absolutely.

> To be clear, we need to give them unique names. And since they already have
> unique names, from the standard, why not use those? And, then, why use those
> standard names in some cases but not in others?
>   
Of course we should use good standard technical names internally. I 
guess X11 is good for this since Stefan mentioned it. But for 
communication with the users refering to the physical keyboard is in my 
opinion better.

Having different names is a bit complex of course, but I do not believe 
it can be more simple than that (and you have given good reasons for that).

> It's the signal sent by the physical key that's important, no? How can you
> even tell if your keyboard has an `prior' key - do you just look for a Page
> Up label? That might not be sufficient, depending on what that key is mapped
> to.
>   
No problem on a standard pc I guess.

Re: Why are <next> and <prior> not called <page down> and <page up>?

[Stefan Monnier]

> Thanks, but then we are talking about different levels.  You refer to
> a technical level.  I am more interested in what the user sees, the
> physical keyboard.  I think it is easier to understand and remember for
> users if we refer to the physical keyboard.  This is also very
> standard today.

But here you're bumping into a core design guideline of Emacs, which is to
make things as transparent as possible: the internal names are generally
both used internally (of course) and made visible to the end user.
So changing the end user side will have impacts on the internal side as
well, so it can't be changed as easily as you may think.

Whether that's good or bad is up to you, but it's a bit late to change it,


        Stefan

Re: Why are <next> and <prior> not called <page down> and <page up>?

[Lennart Borgman]

Stefan Monnier wrote:
>> Thanks, but then we are talking about different levels.  You refer to
>> a technical level.  I am more interested in what the user sees, the
>> physical keyboard.  I think it is easier to understand and remember for
>> users if we refer to the physical keyboard.  This is also very
>> standard today.
>>     
>
> But here you're bumping into a core design guideline of Emacs, which is to
> make things as transparent as possible: the internal names are generally
> both used internally (of course) and made visible to the end user.
> So changing the end user side will have impacts on the internal side as
> well, so it can't be changed as easily as you may think.
>
> Whether that's good or bad is up to you, but it's a bit late to change it,
>   
The principle to have things as transparent as possible is a good one, 
but so is to use understandable names for end users.

What is needed is a translation from the internal symbol names to 
physical keyboard key names in `single-key-description'. Such a 
translation should of course be possible to turn off.

Do you think this is a very big change? Does it disturb the transparency 
very much?

Re: Why are <next> and <prior> not called <page down> and <page up>?

[Lennart Borgman]

Lennart Borgman wrote:
> The principle to have things as transparent as possible is a good one, 
> but so is to use understandable names for end users.
>
> What is needed is a translation from the internal symbol names to 
> physical keyboard key names in `single-key-description'. Such a 
> translation should of course be possible to turn off.
>
> Do you think this is a very big change? Does it disturb the 
> transparency very much?
Ehum, you need the same kind of things for the input description too of 
course.

Re: Why are <next> and <prior> not called <page down> and <page up>?

[Stefan Monnier]

> What is needed is a translation from the internal symbol names to physical
> keyboard key names in `single-key-description'. Such a translation should of
> course be possible to turn off.

> Do you think this is a very big change? Does it disturb the transparency
> very much?

Well, the question is: how should people figure out the piece of elisp code
they should add in their .emacs in order to bind something to "page up".
A common way to do it is C-h c <page-up> and the response will currently say
"<prior>" but your suggestion would replace it with "<page-up>", so then
we'd need to make sure that this can be passed to define-key, probably via
`kbd', so we'd have to adjust kbd as well, at least.  Also until now you
could do the translation by hand rather than use `kbd' and just pass [prior]
to define-key but [page-up] won't work, ...

It's not like it can't be done, but current expectations tend to make such
a thing into a special exception, which may generate at least as much
trouble as it's intended to solve.  Then again, maybe not, I don't
actually know.  I'm just pointing out that it's not nearly as simple as
it seems.


        Stefan

Re: Why are <next> and <prior> not called <page down> and <page up>?

[David Abrahams]

"Drew Adams" <drew.adams@oracle.com> writes:

> but <prior> and <next> are standard names, which means that users
> can find things out about them (e.g.  Google).

Have you tried that?  Those words are so common and non-specific that
I doubt it would turn up much of use.

-- 
Dave Abrahams
Boost Consulting
www.boost-consulting.com

Re: Why are <next> and <prior> not called <page down> and <page up>?

[Eli Zaretskii]

> Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2006 20:55:57 +0200
> From: Lennart Borgman <lennart.borgman.073@student.lu.se>
> Cc: Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca>,
> 	Emacs Devel <emacs-devel@gnu.org>
> 
> > But I wouldn't suggest changing this until after the release, as it 
> > probably affects lots of documentation, even if we keep the old names 
> > as aliases for backwards compatibility.
> 
> I suggest changing them at once.

Please don't suggest such things at this time.  We've already had too
many temptations to make unnecessary changes, and will no doubt have
more.  It's already September out there, and we wanted to start a
pretest this month.

Re: Why are <next> and <prior> not called <page down> and <page up>?

[Lennart Borgman]

Eli Zaretskii wrote:
>> Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2006 20:55:57 +0200
>> From: Lennart Borgman <lennart.borgman.073@student.lu.se>
>> Cc: Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca>,
>> 	Emacs Devel <emacs-devel@gnu.org>
>>
>>     
>>> But I wouldn't suggest changing this until after the release, as it 
>>> probably affects lots of documentation, even if we keep the old names 
>>> as aliases for backwards compatibility.
>>>       
>> I suggest changing them at once.
>>     
>
> Please don't suggest such things at this time.  We've already had too
> many temptations to make unnecessary changes, and will no doubt have
> more.  It's already September out there, and we wanted to start a
> pretest this month.
>   

May I then suggest a little smaller change for this instead? Could we 
have a human readable table with translations from internal key names 
like <paste>, <next> to standard keyboard names? Just those names that 
differ should go into the table of course.

BTW, it feels ridiculous, but I have never been able to learn where 
<paste> is on my keyboard. Since I use CUA mode and Viper I have no 
problems really with that, but it feels strange not to know it. Maybe I 
asked once before, I am not sure.

RE: Why are <next> and <prior> not called <page down> and <page up>?

[Drew Adams]

    May I then suggest a little smaller change for this instead? Could we
    have a human readable table with translations from internal key names
    like <paste>, <next> to standard keyboard names? Just those names that
    differ should go into the table of course.

That's a good suggestion. It should be phrased in terms of "often used as
labels on many keyboards" etc., to avoid giving the impression that this is
standard; it is common among many keyboards, but it is by no means standard
(there is no standard for such labels AFAIK).

Re: Why are <next> and <prior> not called <page down> and <page up>?

[David Kastrup]

"Drew Adams" <drew.adams@oracle.com> writes:

>     May I then suggest a little smaller change for this instead? Could we
>     have a human readable table with translations from internal key names
>     like <paste>, <next> to standard keyboard names? Just those names that
>     differ should go into the table of course.
>
> That's a good suggestion. It should be phrased in terms of "often
> used as labels on many keyboards" etc., to avoid giving the
> impression that this is standard; it is common among many keyboards,
> but it is by no means standard (there is no standard for such labels
> AFAIK).

Maybe the "Emacs terminology" info page is a reasonable place for
that?  It is not really Emacs terminology, but people might look for
it there.

-- 
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum

Re: Why are <next> and <prior> not called <page down> and <page up>?

[Lennart Borgman]

David Kastrup wrote:
> "Drew Adams" <drew.adams@oracle.com> writes:
>
>   
>>     May I then suggest a little smaller change for this instead? Could we
>>     have a human readable table with translations from internal key names
>>     like <paste>, <next> to standard keyboard names? Just those names that
>>     differ should go into the table of course.
>>
>> That's a good suggestion. It should be phrased in terms of "often
>> used as labels on many keyboards" etc., to avoid giving the
>> impression that this is standard; it is common among many keyboards,
>> but it is by no means standard (there is no standard for such labels
>> AFAIK).
>>     
>
> Maybe the "Emacs terminology" info page is a reasonable place for
> that?  It is not really Emacs terminology, but people might look for
> it there.
>   

That is fine for me. (And I think it is about Emacs terminology.)

RE: Why are <next> and <prior> not called <page down> and <page up>?

[Drew Adams]

    >>     May I then suggest a little smaller change for this
    instead? Could we
    >>     have a human readable table with translations from
    internal key names
    >>     like <paste>, <next> to standard keyboard names? Just
    those names that
    >>     differ should go into the table of course.
    >>
    >> That's a good suggestion. It should be phrased in terms of "often
    >> used as labels on many keyboards" etc., to avoid giving the
    >> impression that this is standard; it is common among many keyboards,
    >> but it is by no means standard (there is no standard for such labels
    >> AFAIK).
    >>
    >
    > Maybe the "Emacs terminology" info page is a reasonable place for
    > that?  It is not really Emacs terminology, but people might look for
    > it there.

    That is fine for me. (And I think it is about Emacs terminology.)

It is about terminology, but it not much about Emacs terminology. Any other
app that let you talk about keys (e.g. bind them) would have the same
terminological difficulty, because there is a canonical (X11) name for the
key that is different from what is printed on the key itself.

Node "Keys" or somewhere under node "Key Bindings" is where I think someone
would try to look up what these keys are about and what they're called. `i
key' takes you to node "Keys", for instance.

Perhaps mention this in both places (Emacs Terminology and Keys or somewhere
under Key Bindings), by using a cross reference?

Also, we might add index entries for Page Up, Page Down, next, and prior
(though `next' will probably get lots of hits), so someone can get to the
explanation directly.

Re: Why are <next> and <prior> not called <page down> and <page up>?

[Lennart Borgman]

Drew Adams wrote:
>     >>     May I then suggest a little smaller change for this
>     instead? Could we
>     >>     have a human readable table with translations from
>     internal key names
>     >>     like <paste>, <next> to standard keyboard names? Just
>     those names that
>     >>     differ should go into the table of course.
>     >>
>     >> That's a good suggestion. It should be phrased in terms of "often
>     >> used as labels on many keyboards" etc., to avoid giving the
>     >> impression that this is standard; it is common among many keyboards,
>     >> but it is by no means standard (there is no standard for such labels
>     >> AFAIK).
>     >>
>     >
>     > Maybe the "Emacs terminology" info page is a reasonable place for
>     > that?  It is not really Emacs terminology, but people might look for
>     > it there.
>
>     That is fine for me. (And I think it is about Emacs terminology.)
>
> It is about terminology, but it not much about Emacs terminology. Any other
> app that let you talk about keys (e.g. bind them) would have the same
> terminological difficulty, because there is a canonical (X11) name for the
> key that is different from what is printed on the key itself.
>
> Node "Keys" or somewhere under node "Key Bindings" is where I think someone
> would try to look up what these keys are about and what they're called. `i
> key' takes you to node "Keys", for instance.
>
> Perhaps mention this in both places (Emacs Terminology and Keys or somewhere
> under Key Bindings), by using a cross reference?
>
> Also, we might add index entries for Page Up, Page Down, next, and prior
> (though `next' will probably get lots of hits), so someone can get to the
> explanation directly.
>   

Where is the information about keys needed to write the table?

RE: Why are <next> and <prior> not called <page down> and <page up>?

[Drew Adams]

    Where is the information about keys needed to write the table?
    
Dunno.

Re: Why are <next> and <prior> not called <page down> and <page up>?

[Jason Rumney]

Lennart Borgman <lennart.borgman.073@student.lu.se> writes:

> BTW, it feels ridiculous, but I have never been able to learn where
> <paste> is on my keyboard.

You probably don't have a Paste key. Sun keyboards have them
though. Due to the primitive protocols that keyboards use, it is not
possible for Emacs to discover what keys you have on your keyboard.

Re: Why are <next> and <prior> not called <page down> and <page up>?

[Lennart Borgman]

Jason Rumney wrote:
> Lennart Borgman <lennart.borgman.073@student.lu.se> writes:
>
>   
>> BTW, it feels ridiculous, but I have never been able to learn where
>> <paste> is on my keyboard.
>>     
>
> You probably don't have a Paste key. Sun keyboards have them
> though. Due to the primitive protocols that keyboards use, it is not
> possible for Emacs to discover what keys you have on your keyboard.
>   
Thanks, but do you mean that I can use a Sun keyboard on w32? Does the 
Paste key then work in Emacs?

BTW, I just noticed that I can do things like

     (define-key global-map [page-down] 'scroll-up)

I get no error. It is just that it does not work. Should it be this way?

Re: Why are <next> and <prior> not called <page down> and <page up>?

[Kevin Rodgers]

Lennart Borgman wrote:
> BTW, I just noticed that I can do things like
> 
>     (define-key global-map [page-down] 'scroll-up)
> 
> I get no error. It is just that it does not work. Should it be this way?

It does work: it binds the page-down function key to the scroll-up
command.  The only problem is that you don't have a way to key the
page-down input event.  This is no different than if you bound a
character that you can't type directly (think exotic, like Unicode math
symbols).

-- 
Kevin