From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: "Davis Herring" Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Emacs learning curve Date: Thu, 22 Jul 2010 07:20:10 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <50523.130.55.118.19.1279808410.squirrel@webmail.lanl.gov> References: <4C3B6A8A.80105@gmx.de> <87wrt0e81n.fsf@telefonica.net> <62E9699C07054418AB66F9C5FCB54E5C@us.oracle.com> <87sk3oe3la.fsf@telefonica.net> <1154D96E7D2F401D849266F359E44BB9@us.oracle.com> <87ocecdzou.fsf@telefonica.net> <2256C17F740A425884AD551DE7758056@us.oracle.com> <87fwzodqqm.fsf@telefonica.net> <5138CDF30B2D4B778F948015614DA7BC@us.oracle.com> <87iq4ijtdy.fsf@lola.goethe.zz> <87bpa7uu1e.fsf@kanis.fr> <877hkv2hco.fsf@catnip.gol.com> <87iq4e593w.fsf@kanis.fr> <87lj9ayp2f.fsf@stupidchicken.com> Reply-To: herring@lanl.gov 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 1279808443 4236 80.91.229.12 (22 Jul 2010 14:20:43 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 22 Jul 2010 14:20:43 +0000 (UTC) Cc: Ivan Kanis , Chong Yidong , emacs-devel@gnu.org, Tom , Miles Bader To: "Lennart Borgman" Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Thu Jul 22 16:20:40 2010 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 1ObwdX-0005Br-Mv for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 22 Jul 2010 16:20:36 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:59642 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1ObwdW-0000Uk-JV for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 22 Jul 2010 10:20:34 -0400 Original-Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=46571 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1ObwdM-0000TH-52 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 22 Jul 2010 10:20:25 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1ObwdK-0000L5-O4 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 22 Jul 2010 10:20:23 -0400 Original-Received: from proofpoint1.lanl.gov ([204.121.3.25]:54135) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1ObwdE-0000IV-SW; Thu, 22 Jul 2010 10:20:17 -0400 Original-Received: from mailrelay1.lanl.gov (mailrelay1.lanl.gov [128.165.4.101]) by proofpoint1 (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id o6MEKA5Y030720; Thu, 22 Jul 2010 08:20:10 -0600 Original-Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mailrelay1.lanl.gov (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6E04394579A; Thu, 22 Jul 2010 08:20:10 -0600 (MDT) X-NIE-2-Virus-Scanner: amavisd-new at mailrelay1.lanl.gov Original-Received: from webmail1.lanl.gov (webmail1.lanl.gov [128.165.4.106]) by mailrelay1.lanl.gov (Postfix) with ESMTP id 588AA94578C; Thu, 22 Jul 2010 08:20:10 -0600 (MDT) Original-Received: by webmail1.lanl.gov (Postfix, from userid 48) id 54B0C1CA8224; Thu, 22 Jul 2010 08:20:10 -0600 (MDT) Original-Received: from 130.55.118.19 (SquirrelMail authenticated user 196434) by webmail.lanl.gov with HTTP; Thu, 22 Jul 2010 07:20:10 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: User-Agent: SquirrelMail/1.4.8-5.el5_4.10.lanl3 X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Importance: Normal X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10432:5.0.10011, 1.0.148, 0.0.0000 definitions=2010-07-22_04:2010-07-22, 2010-07-22, 1970-01-01 signatures=0 X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6, seldom 2.4 (older, 4) 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:127636 Archived-At: > Is not this a reason for making CUA mode default? As long as it is not > the default it will be a second class citizen and obstacles like this > will remains. And those makes it quite a bit harder for new users. If it is in fact the case that "As long as [a keymap] is not the default ... obstacles like this will remain[]", then it would still be true (but about the current global map) if CUA were the default, and so obstacles would still remain. (You were making a point very much like this in a more recent message.) So how can your argument favor either as the default? Of course, I think I know the answer. You think that it is not the keymap conflicts, but the lack of CUA itself, that makes it "quite a bit harder for new users". So then the obstacles (keymap conflicts) are bad, but only because they interfere with the obvious, necessary adoption of CUA-as-default. But look at the resulting logic: 1. Keymap conflicts make it hard/problematic to change the default. 2. If CUA became the default, the keymap conflicts would have been addressed. (Because they had to be!) 3. It would then no longer be problematic to change the default. 4. Therefore, we should adopt CUA, because it's not problematic to do so. Step 3 never happens, because the benefit it provides occurs too late. "If the problem were already solved, it would be easy, so let's do it!" My sincerest apologies if I misunderstand your thinking. But if I understand it correctly, please don't construct a circular argument and then hide it by connecting keymap conflicts (which we're all unhappy about) directly to "quite a bit harder for new users", which is not a point everyone agrees on. Davis -- This product is sold by volume, not by mass. If it appears too dense or too sparse, it is because mass-energy conversion has occurred during shipping.