From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Daniel Colascione Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Proposal: new default bindings for winner and windmove Date: Sun, 23 Jun 2024 10:06:08 -0400 Message-ID: <5AE6558D-28DD-436B-BBFF-BDA9BBB686EC@dancol.org> References: <7133BE83-064B-43A4-A193-61376605222C@dancol.org> <055E6E92-6971-409E-A106-7E0C64FEF856@dancol.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="13605"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" User-Agent: K-9 Mail for Android Cc: Stefan Kangas , Stefan Monnier , emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Alan Mackenzie Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Sun Jun 23 16:06:47 2024 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 1sLNri-0003LW-KP for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Sun, 23 Jun 2024 16:06:47 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1sLNrP-0005Vg-4i; Sun, 23 Jun 2024 10:06:27 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1sLNrH-0005PE-OX for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 23 Jun 2024 10:06:25 -0400 Original-Received: from dancol.org ([2600:3c01:e000:3d8::1]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1sLNrF-0004Lj-QI for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 23 Jun 2024 10:06:19 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=dancol.org; s=x; h=Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type:MIME-Version:Message-ID: References:In-Reply-To:Subject:CC:To:From:Date:Sender:Reply-To:Content-ID: Content-Description:Resent-Date:Resent-From:Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc :Resent-Message-ID:List-Id:List-Help:List-Unsubscribe:List-Subscribe: List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=xgL+OHKHBzTrP6RHGW7vBThpNrxHR9OhGsOF52lgnbg=; b=UOh+cYh0C3uqjOX79lC/VJ4Unt 59fy/WUhqZKweCZoMYTfCsnW2goP6e+BqQAupRklWKjKDShEbYQUWAN4jEdZtSa1gd8PtpJ9yKPpH 6YDXBGF2NQ5JgGPCNpWrXa8sJwoBGpGk14FRBMkA/xQh1KMGTlQFVoAGewUQwjum6NZo9YdKQMgmo GMAOhXJNt9skl2kncT45xg/pMKPj06N964d7L6a4/8CH2wWlL5DMr/HsmGbQZJcBlPN31bAz+qe3R aLGgamOZolT10s+eLktb7n4shQ0Uxl23OcY3nm2oH4qbsMcjo08AWXqbqLv5nwH3E8Y8wOx77h7je R7v+6dHA==; Original-Received: from 2603-9001-4203-1ab2-44c9-c16c-aa21-95a3.inf6.spectrum.com ([2603:9001:4203:1ab2:44c9:c16c:aa21:95a3]:40742 helo=[IPv6:::1]) by dancol.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.3) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (Exim 4.94.2) (envelope-from ) id 1sLNr7-0004rN-DU; Sun, 23 Jun 2024 10:06:09 -0400 In-Reply-To: Received-SPF: pass client-ip=2600:3c01:e000:3d8::1; envelope-from=dancol@dancol.org; helo=dancol.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: 2.1.29 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-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.io gmane.emacs.devel:320531 Archived-At: On June 23, 2024 9:59:05 AM EDT, Alan Mackenzie wrote: >Hello, Daniel=2E > >On Sun, Jun 23, 2024 at 08:57:36 -0400, Daniel Colascione wrote: > > >> On June 23, 2024 8:05:22 AM EDT, Alan Mackenzie wrote: >> >On Sun, Jun 23, 2024 at 07:14:25 -0400, Daniel Colascione wrote: >> >> On June 23, 2024 6:05:13 AM EDT, Alan Mackenzie wrote= : > >> >> >On Fri, Jun 21, 2024 at 15:39:09 -0500, Stefan Kangas wrote: >> >> >> Stefan Monnier writes: > >> >> >> > A few years ago, Daniel suggested: >> >> >> >> Likewise, for windmove, we can bind C-x 4 {left, right, up, do= wn} and DWIM >> >> >> >> for people automatically, enabled by default=2E > >> >> >> > AFAICT we still don't actually provide any keybindings for the = windmove >> >> >> > commands by default=2E Did I miss a controversy about that, or= did it >> >> >> > just fall through the cracks? > >> >> >> FWIW, I don't remember any controversy either, so my guess is tha= t it >> >> >> just fell through the cracks=2E > >> >> >I would be against using C-x 4 or C-x 5 f= or >> >> >windmove (or anything else) by default=2E Key sequences with arrow= keys >> >> >are too few, and too precious, to use for anything not critically >> >> >important=2E > >> >> >windmove is not critically important=2E Either it isn't used at al= l by a >> >> >user (likely most users), or it is used all the time (by a small nu= mber >> >> >of users)=2E In the latter case, the user will already have bound = the >> >> >commands to key sequences, since they are not useful called from M-= x=2E > >> >> >It wasn't so long ago that we were removing default key bindings so= as >> >> >to free them up for other uses=2E I don't think there's any reason= to >> >> >reverse that policy for windmove=2E It just isn't important enough= =2E > >> >> >There will be users who've bound these key bindings for their own u= ses=2E >> >> >Let's not mess these users around=2E > >> >> The arrow keys don't have any meaning after C-x 4 today, and the >> >> meaning I've been wanting to give them is useful and logical=2E > >> >It's useful to you, personally=2E It wouldn't be useful to me=2E > >> >> I've been using the arrow key setup for years locally and it works v= ery >> >> well=2E It really does make window management much less annoying, an= d >> >> it's not like we're going to use the arrow keys for anything else un= der >> >> C-x 4=2E > >> >You've been using C-x 4 for your purposes, and other users >> >will be using them for their purposes, likely to be different from you= rs=2E > >> So? Nobody is preventing those users doing what they want with their >> key bindings=2E You're making a general purpose argument against havin= g >> default key bindings at all=2E Why don't we just ship Emacs with an emp= ty >> global keymap so we're not imposing on anyone? > >That isn't a nuanced reasoned argument any more than it was the first >time you made it (which I snipped)=2E It's barely worth replying to=2E Your position neverthelessboils down to a general argument against introdu= cing new default keybindings, because=2E=2E=2E >What I'm saying is that IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE binding those particular >keys to these commands is not a good idea=2E =2E=2E=2EI haven't seen why in this case binding these keys is a particula= rly bad idea=2E The original argument is that providing these bindings woul= d somehow override user customization=2E They won't=2E There's no deprivati= on of user customization, so the "scarcity" of arrow key bindings is irrele= vant=2E Now the objection is over "clutter"? Does an arrow key binding some= how create more clutter than some other binding? There's nothing special ab= out these bindings=2E > >[ =2E=2E=2E=2E ] > >> >> But that aside, even if windmove is sparsely used today, might that = be >> >> because it's inconvenient to use without bindings? > >> >It might, but it's unlikely=2E Even C-x 4 would be inconvenient = for >> >me=2E I have other-window bound to and rarely have more than th= ree >> >or four windows in a frame=2E I'd hit two or three times rather >> >going through the rigmarole of C-x 4 =2E > >> So? How does providing default windmove bindings make your life worse? > >It clutters up the keymap with rarely[*] used commands, leaving fewer >bindings available to the user=2E >[*] That's "rarely" as in "very few users" even though each of these no >doubt uses the commands a lot=2E That a command without a binding might (or might not --- no metrics) rarel= y used and therefore doesn't merit a binding is kind of tautological=2E