From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Eli Zaretskii Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Standardizing more key bindings? Date: Sun, 04 Oct 2020 10:16:02 +0300 Message-ID: <834knafolp.fsf@gnu.org> References: <83zh55f7bv.fsf@gnu.org> Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="28084"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org, thibaut.verron@gmail.com, dgutov@yandex.ru To: rms@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Sun Oct 04 09:17:32 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 1kOyGy-0007DW-FP for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Sun, 04 Oct 2020 09:17:32 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:39184 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1kOyGx-0001JU-Gz for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Sun, 04 Oct 2020 03:17:31 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:50268) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1kOyFh-0000o4-6f for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 04 Oct 2020 03:16:13 -0400 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]:37680) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1kOyFg-0005nD-CA; Sun, 04 Oct 2020 03:16:12 -0400 Original-Received: from [176.228.60.248] (port=2820 helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1kOyFY-0007gj-Gh; Sun, 04 Oct 2020 03:16:04 -0400 In-Reply-To: (message from Richard Stallman on Sat, 03 Oct 2020 23:38:55 -0400) 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:257014 Archived-At: > From: Richard Stallman > Cc: dgutov@yandex.ru, thibaut.verron@gmail.com, emacs-devel@gnu.org > Date: Sat, 03 Oct 2020 23:38:55 -0400 > > > They could also be defined by prog-mode, which is (or should be) the > > parent of all programming modes. > > There are quite a few programming modes where these operations are not > useful -- compiled languages which don't have an interpreter. That's a valid consideration. But does it really invalidate the proposal? If you don't have a language interpreter to send it a region of the buffer, then these key sequences will never be used, because there's no program to send them to. Right? > Perhaps someday C will have an interpreter. (I tried to get that > done, 30 years ago.) One could argue that the interpreter keys > should be kept available for that purpose even in C mode. There are C interpreters out there, although they are not widespread. There's also the JIT C compiler in GDB, which can be regarded as a kind of C interpreter. And then there's 'cdecl', which can be used as such an interpreter, albeit with very limited capabilities. So even for a compiled language such as C, this notion would sometimes make sense, I think. > On the other hand, those keys might have existing definitions in these > modes, and finding other bindings for those definitions could be a > pain. And that would be an incompatible change. > > On the gripping hand, it wouldn't be hard to make the specific modes > override the new prog-mode bindings with their traditional definitions. > > So I guess it is ok to put them in prog-mode. Agreed. > But that presumes we use just one command to implement each > of these operations, in all the modes where they are useful. Yes, I think that's the intention.