Re: What does 'run' do in cperl-mode?

["Lennart Borgman (gmail)" <lennart.borgman@gmail.com>]

Xah Lee wrote:
> well, actually i'm surprised that you disagree with some of my points.

That is good. Then you have noticed I disagree ;-)

> Ok, more specifically, in our topic here, you want the Alt key to
> behave like other Windows apps. Namely, it invokes menu when pressed
> by itself, and invoke command when pressed together with another key.
> In other words, conforming to Window's UI guidelines.

Yes. I believe that on Windows it should do that. Otherwise a lot of 
users will be scared away.

> As you know, on Apple's OSX, it follows a slightly different GUI
> guideline. In particular, in OSX there's no such key like Window's Alt
> that invokes a menu by itself... (traditinoally, Windows UI is
> designed such that users can operate the computer by keyboard alone
> without a mouse; but traditionlly Apple doesn't do this unless you
> count turning keypad into a pointing device... but since about ~2004
> in OSX Apple started to have a bunch of keys (usually Ctrl+Fn) to
> navigate GUI elements... In short, how user uses keyboard to operate
> the computer follows quite a different model than on Windows)

Thanks. I did not know about this. I guess what happened is that the 
accessibility requirements forced Apple to do allow keyboard navigation. 
I think that is good.

I fear however that it is a bit unfortunate they invented their own way. 
  This can perhaps make things worse for people with disabilities. (And 
it makes me wonder about Apple's priorities.)

> if i think correctly, you always stands by the Windows way. So, in
> your opinion, my suggestion for using the notation “Alt+‹key›” for
> emacs's “M-‹key›” is not good because that's incompatible with the
> Window's way of pressing Alt by itself to invoke graphical menu.
> 
> Yes i can see that'd be a problem. But your Windows way is a nutcase,
> and is not compatible with emacs tradition anyway. LOLz! I hope emacs
> developers here will flame you to death first.

They already have. This is my second incarnation. Or is it the third? 
You kind of loose your memory.

> Of course, we are getting onto a philosophical issue of whether to
> have one's own interface or follow one of the major OS. The Java
> platform tried to force its own interface (e.g. widgets looks and
> feel), but basically failed. When a java program runs on Windows,
> people want it to look and feel like Windows. When it runs on Mac,
> people want it to look and feel like Mac. Basically, the crucial
> factor is just market share. People are habituated with whatever they
> are. They dont want to change. Java tried to squeeze its UI look and
> feel starting with 0% market share into the meaty Windows UI or Mac
> UI; sure it fails.

I think the lesson from Java is obvious: do what people expect on 
different platform. They expect Alt to activate the menus on Windows.

But of course in Emacs make it an option. Never force it on the users.

The current policy is that a standard Emacs (ie "emacs -Q") should 
behave the same on all platform. It is not a bad choice (but does not 
work since Emacs to be useful in many cases requires helper programs).

There is however nothing that prevents you and other to write different 
schemes corresponding to different platform for users to easily choose 
from. I have written some tools for it. And very good tools like 
cua-mode and Viper are included in Emacs.

> However, with emacs, i think emacs has a chance to stand on its own.
> Because, as you know, emacs precedes Windows or Mac.

That does not matter. Users (except those who already use Emacs) does 
not care about that.