From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: no-spam@cua.dk (Kim F. Storm) Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: [CVS] f7, f8 bound.. Date: 30 Aug 2002 16:48:41 +0200 Sender: emacs-devel-admin@gnu.org Message-ID: <5xvg5sh06u.fsf@kfs2.cua.dk> References: <87lm6xiruh.fsf@computer.localdomain> <5xu1liwmu6.fsf@kfs2.cua.dk> <200208261526.g7QFQX624783@rum.cs.yale.edu> <5xu1lgu1e4.fsf@kfs2.cua.dk> <200208271621.g7RGLNm30516@rum.cs.yale.edu> <5xhehfe3aj.fsf@kfs2.cua.dk> <874rdfaytt.fsf@pot.cnuce.cnr.it> NNTP-Posting-Host: localhost.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: main.gmane.org 1030715455 22437 127.0.0.1 (30 Aug 2002 13:50:55 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@main.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2002 13:50:55 +0000 (UTC) Cc: Kai.Grossjohann@CS.Uni-Dortmund.DE, pot@gnu.org, miles@gnu.org, monnier+gnu/emacs@rum.cs.yale.edu, deego@glue.umd.edu, emacs-devel@gnu.org Return-path: Original-Received: from quimby.gnus.org ([80.91.224.244]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 17kmAn-0005pl-00 for ; Fri, 30 Aug 2002 15:50:53 +0200 Original-Received: from monty-python.gnu.org ([199.232.76.173]) by quimby.gnus.org with esmtp (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian)) id 17kmha-0005lR-00 for ; Fri, 30 Aug 2002 16:24:46 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.10) id 17kmCD-0005iX-00; Fri, 30 Aug 2002 09:52:21 -0400 Original-Received: from list by monty-python.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.10) id 17km8r-0005VT-00 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 30 Aug 2002 09:48:53 -0400 Original-Received: from mail by monty-python.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.10) id 17km8p-0005V9-00 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 30 Aug 2002 09:48:52 -0400 Original-Received: from mail.filanet.dk ([195.215.206.179]) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.10) id 17km8o-0005Qs-00; Fri, 30 Aug 2002 09:48:50 -0400 Original-Received: from kfs2.cua.dk.cua.dk (kfs2.local.filanet.dk [192.168.1.182]) by mail.filanet.dk (Postfix) with SMTP id 6D5837C016; Fri, 30 Aug 2002 13:48:19 +0000 (GMT) Original-To: rms@gnu.org In-Reply-To: Original-Lines: 36 User-Agent: Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.3.50 Errors-To: emacs-devel-admin@gnu.org X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.11 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: Emacs development discussions. List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:7166 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.devel:7166 Richard Stallman writes: > The F2 bindings are also available as C-x 6 bindings, so nothing > needs to be done, I think. > > Do people think we should remove the F2 bindings? We could provide > commands on F2 and F3 that resemble simple text editors. IMO, we better use the function keys for things which makes using emacs easier. I don't know what simple editors we need to look like, or whether any of the simple editors resembles each other. I doubt it. As an example, M$-Word (which I would image quite a few users are using -- like it or not) has the following bindings F2 runs "MoveText", F3 runs "InsertAutoText", F4 runs "EditRedoOrRepeat", F5 runs "EditGoTo", etc... Seems completely arbitraty to me... I don't know what bindings M-$ visual studio (or whatever it's called) or other IDEs put on the function keys. We already provide things like crisp-mode which binds a lot of keys in ways which resembles other editors. That's a reasonable approach. But it shouldn't be the default to try to mimic other (inferior :-) editors. -- Kim F. Storm http://www.cua.dk