From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Drew Adams Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: RE: "whether the global keymap C-x 4 will be replaced by a command," Date: Sun, 19 Jul 2020 15:28:49 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <6e548da3-61ee-4c98-8f14-c2987caadbdf@default> References: <83ft9woo68.fsf@gnu.org> <87wo377wxp.fsf_-_@mail.linkov.net> <87wo353f77.fsf@mail.linkov.net> <87o8ofoy9o.fsf@mail.linkov.net> <87sgdog5b5.fsf@iris.silentflame.com> 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="22674"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org To: rms@gnu.org, Sean Whitton Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Sun Jul 19 17:29:35 2020 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 1jxBFu-0005mp-Jh for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Sun, 19 Jul 2020 17:29:34 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:39640 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1jxBFt-0006Or-LZ for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Sun, 19 Jul 2020 11:29:33 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:48064) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1jxBFJ-0005xf-9Y for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 19 Jul 2020 11:28:57 -0400 Original-Received: from aserp2120.oracle.com ([141.146.126.78]:45568) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1jxBFH-0003BB-2I; Sun, 19 Jul 2020 11:28:56 -0400 Original-Received: from pps.filterd (aserp2120.oracle.com [127.0.0.1]) by aserp2120.oracle.com (8.16.0.42/8.16.0.42) with SMTP id 06JFILKP161698; Sun, 19 Jul 2020 15:28:52 GMT DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=oracle.com; h=mime-version : message-id : date : from : sender : to : cc : subject : references : in-reply-to : content-type : content-transfer-encoding; s=corp-2020-01-29; bh=RhHb6BkPU/Lmg5F7JR3P3Am8P2FI561z1AeCe0AjqjU=; b=CFCD7OwfSaej3HOlWZXwKHZ1rcj7/tZ5KMrueX0pBKwjR98pfDJ69gr+3YCjJYTiyO+G d1LMBxgG2Zv2gnT976vC6VKLTnb4O+1C2DqfAu7aDzWz6HXmJqdBE0CTy5kLowcojW+q VVq+ANhJQ4WV1AEBFCfEz5yLNo4whTmQFfVr3V+JjuUQZ+z9tgeHIWVPQmgOku2SCWlL Xb55wNutGGln9+FAeMPXaPrOu0Vpjy+0PqOjDPbf3J7dlX5smxvrfRQjSwCue990VTip NzZj9ilFDp024HFK4TeCJPq+i70QHbvBlNWvdM+OuRoWPuLAiK5rr4ICuaYDIB+/VTWp AA== Original-Received: from userp3020.oracle.com (userp3020.oracle.com [156.151.31.79]) by aserp2120.oracle.com with ESMTP id 32bs1m3d7j-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=FAIL); Sun, 19 Jul 2020 15:28:51 +0000 Original-Received: from pps.filterd (userp3020.oracle.com [127.0.0.1]) by userp3020.oracle.com (8.16.0.42/8.16.0.42) with SMTP id 06JFI4pH041421; Sun, 19 Jul 2020 15:28:51 GMT Original-Received: from aserv0121.oracle.com (aserv0121.oracle.com [141.146.126.235]) by userp3020.oracle.com with ESMTP id 32cjsk4vhy-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Sun, 19 Jul 2020 15:28:51 +0000 Original-Received: from abhmp0015.oracle.com (abhmp0015.oracle.com [141.146.116.21]) by aserv0121.oracle.com (8.14.4/8.13.8) with ESMTP id 06JFSnRP013406; Sun, 19 Jul 2020 15:28:50 GMT In-Reply-To: X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Oracle Beehive Extensions for Outlook 2.0.1.9.1 (1003210) [OL 16.0.5017.0 (x86)] X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=nai engine=6000 definitions=9687 signatures=668680 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=notspam policy=default score=0 mlxlogscore=999 adultscore=0 spamscore=0 suspectscore=0 phishscore=0 malwarescore=0 mlxscore=0 bulkscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.12.0-2006250000 definitions=main-2007190118 X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=nai engine=6000 definitions=9687 signatures=668680 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=notspam policy=default score=0 suspectscore=0 bulkscore=0 adultscore=0 lowpriorityscore=0 mlxlogscore=999 malwarescore=0 clxscore=1015 spamscore=0 mlxscore=0 impostorscore=0 phishscore=0 priorityscore=1501 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.12.0-2006250000 definitions=main-2007190118 Received-SPF: pass client-ip=141.146.126.78; envelope-from=drew.adams@oracle.com; helo=aserp2120.oracle.com X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: First seen = 2020/07/19 11:28:53 X-ACL-Warn: Detected OS = Linux 3.1-3.10 [fuzzy] X-Spam_score_int: -63 X-Spam_score: -6.4 X-Spam_bar: ------ X-Spam_report: (-6.4 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-1, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-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:253105 Archived-At: > There are two closely related but distinct questions. >=20 > 1. Whether Drew would like to use that facility to > make -other-window functions. I hope I answered that clearly: No, I would not. a. To me, the difficulty of, and the need to, automatically, programmatically create -other-* commands are non-problems. It's not difficult to create an -other-* command. When it's helpful to do so programmatically (e.g. to reduce repetitive code) I use (context-specific) Elisp macros to do so. I do that quite a lot, in fact, but always context-specifically. b. Beyond difficulty or need, it is, IMO, misguided to _automatically_ do that. Such commands should be created only as needed, as decided by whoever wants them (user or library author). There is neither a need nor a desire to systematically have -other-* versions of all commands that display something or otherwise use a window or frame. My point was that for -other-* behavior I _do_ want explicit commands. And I don't want some blanket, implicit, general "prefix command" behavior with no explicit commands that I can bind as I like. Saying I want explicit commands for -other-* behavior does not mean that I want such behavior - or such commands - everywhere and always. There's nothing wrong with creating prefix commands. I and others do that, and Emacs has some predefined. What I object to is replacing the use of prefix keys, which are bound to keymaps, with some general mechanism that uses a prefix command. And in particular, replacing prefix keys such as `C-x' and `C-x 4', and their keymap bindings, with some prefix command that simulates what they do, especially in some blanket way, automatically giving _everything_ an -other-* behavior. Not everything deserves/needs an -other-* behavior. There is talk, wrt explicit -other-* commands, of polluting the function/command namespace. The same thing can be said of the proposal, but even more so, wrt a resultant plethora of -other-* behavior. The proposal apparently makes `C-x 4' provide -other-* behavior _generally_, far more than what's available today using explicit keys bound in `ctl-x-4-map'. > 2. What to do about the standard C-x 4 commands, > with three options: >=20 > 2a. Leave them as they are now. >=20 > 2b. Use your proposed generator facility to make > a lot of -other-window functions. I don't think that was proposed, at least initially. It may have been offered as a kind of sop, to respond (misguidedly) to my desire/need to have explicit -other-* commands (e.g. to bind wherever one likes). For my opinion on that, see above - no need. There's no problem defining -other-* commands, manually or using macros. > 2c. Make C-x 4 handle them all automatically. >=20 > Your message talked about choosing between 2b and 2c, > whereas I was suggesting that Drew could do 1.