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: Concern about new binding. Date: Thu, 04 Feb 2021 18:28:07 +0200 Message-ID: <83eehvre5k.fsf@gnu.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> Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="12676"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Gregory Heytings Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Thu Feb 04 17:36:03 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 1l7hbu-000376-QY for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Thu, 04 Feb 2021 17:36:02 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:51486 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1l7hbt-0002y1-QG for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Thu, 04 Feb 2021 11:36:01 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:36844) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1l7hUI-0004XA-M7 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 04 Feb 2021 11:28:10 -0500 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]:40094) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1l7hUI-0007HJ-4H; Thu, 04 Feb 2021 11:28:10 -0500 Original-Received: from 84.94.185.95.cable.012.net.il ([84.94.185.95]:3218 helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1l7hUE-0001ys-S7; Thu, 04 Feb 2021 11:28:08 -0500 In-Reply-To: (message from Gregory Heytings on Thu, 04 Feb 2021 15:56:33 +0000) 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:263885 Archived-At: > Date: Thu, 04 Feb 2021 15:56:33 +0000 > From: Gregory Heytings > cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org > > >>> I guess there is nothing to make a final decision about unless someone > >>> threatens with a patch. Please do that more. :-) > >> > >> Could we revert the previous one then?? That's the first part of my > >> question. > > > > I'd prefer to find a binding to which people could agree, because that > > would leave fewer people unhappy. The two candidates proposed till now > > are "C-x G" and "C-x M-u". > > > > You forgot the proposal to which the mail you are replying to explicitly > refers. No, I didn't forget. I just prefer to solve a problem by the simplest fix, and introducing a whole new set of bindings seems more complex than strictly needed. That proposal also didn't seem to have too many supporters. But I'm okay with that as well, if it will be deemed as an acceptable fix. > BTW, Richard replied to the "C-x G" proposal: "Letters following C-x are > not case-sensitive. That is a systematic rule. That rule is not sacred; > for a good enough reason, we could break it. But this is not an important > reason; it is not sufficient reason to break a rule." I keep that in mind as well. But if enough people are okay with "C-x G" we might decide to break that rule here anyway.