From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Gregory Heytings Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: RE: [External] : Re: Concern about new binding. Date: Fri, 05 Feb 2021 20:26:17 +0000 Message-ID: <5588fb2580d7e46863dd@heytings.org> References: <87zh0mmr54.fsf@gmail.com> <87y2g5smya.fsf@gmail.com> <4FF55FBF-573D-4A70-B3FC-682CA25B7ECB@gnu.org> <83lfc53whk.fsf@gnu.org> <20210203180142.seu6o3i6u7jhkyrh@Ergus> <83eehx3to5.fsf@gnu.org> <20210203221628.xgvvxjvh56gyswba@Ergus> <20210204070033.pm4ido4hq7a6twif@Ergus> <83sg6brhyg.fsf@gnu.org> <5588fb25805d486be704@heytings.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=us-ascii Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="27076"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Drew Adams Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Fri Feb 05 21:28:00 2021 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([209.51.188.17]) by ciao.gmane.io with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1l87hw-0006vN-2c for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Fri, 05 Feb 2021 21:28:00 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:39842 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1l87hv-0005s5-1C for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Fri, 05 Feb 2021 15:27:59 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:60950) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1l87gN-0004uT-9B for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 05 Feb 2021 15:26:23 -0500 Original-Received: from heytings.org ([95.142.160.155]:38364) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1l87gL-0000br-Ec for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 05 Feb 2021 15:26:22 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=heytings.org; s=20210101; t=1612556778; bh=0QrZgPAWAJDg50d7zqXwpexTpZFE2DCxv5GYIYzLUms=; h=Date:From:To:cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:Message-ID:References:From; b=EnQUoCfM/oxrCkEKJdBlMRStzTVWUz3CamzOJnCb1+RZ37h+N+dCXK1lxSPOzZ7t3 D4C7iSZh/4lkOtE0qSk/mOkziRlOCXdso8BN6A9pqBCzu6DHDxdB6/eBbnsmYeyqbt koxRe4Sd5NYoZiqpzSruhIvlx+uUvxO0qifLaEidJoKVWx8U1WU1+t51Y4lU5Vwd+v xoi7vlRXPPoeHRHaBPrhvkBcZVvNdMM6F1Z+20mHtDXolFUpdtv58mwZf2wWdG0wCx 3JFafK0RaKJNLseqd3xZYtMZ1CxVJBufpIR7GnTb8eAPlk/7DTVPMMVF6xRo7ixA03 cvnJjMAgVIkvQ== In-Reply-To: Received-SPF: pass client-ip=95.142.160.155; envelope-from=gregory@heytings.org; helo=heytings.org X-Spam_score_int: -20 X-Spam_score: -2.1 X-Spam_bar: -- X-Spam_report: (-2.1 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: "Emacs-devel" Xref: news.gmane.io gmane.emacs.devel:264007 Archived-At: >> A proposal to solve the current problem and future similar problems is >> to free one of the keys, and to mention in `(elisp) Key Binding >> Conventions' that it is, forever, reserved for external packages. > > I'm not in favor of that - a single key for all 3rd-party code. > > [...] > > I'm not in favor of that either - still too limiting. > I'm puzzled. The proposal frees one complete keymap for libraries such as Magit and yours. With say C-o, Magit could use C-o g and C-o M-g, you could use C-o p and C-o / and ..., and so forth, with the guarantee that Emacs would never reclaim any key in that map. That's a lot of room... > > I favor allowing all keys that are currently allowed for 3rd-party code. > And I favor Emacs itself implementing a moratorium on binding any more > keys by default. > ... but apparently you prefer to continue to use the few remaining keys that are not bound by default? Isn't that contradictory? > > To me, that's too limiting for 3rd-party libraries. I'd prefer what I > say above. Emacs itself should keep its hands off new keys. > That's clearly an unreasonable demand. When new commands are added to Emacs, I see no reason to not bind them to some key. I also see no reason to not bind commands that were for one reason or another not bound when they were included in Emacs, and are nowadays considered important enough to be bound to a key.