From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Eli Zaretskii Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: `C-b' is backward-char, `left' is left-char - why? Date: Sat, 28 May 2011 00:13:05 +0300 Message-ID: <83r57jc0f2.fsf@gnu.org> References: <6F4054004B154CFB8E2753172D316C13@us.oracle.com> <83tycfc0l0.fsf@gnu.org> Reply-To: Eli Zaretskii NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1306530796 25516 80.91.229.12 (27 May 2011 21:13:16 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 27 May 2011 21:13:16 +0000 (UTC) To: drew.adams@oracle.com, emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Fri May 27 23:13:11 2011 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([140.186.70.17]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1QQ4LG-0000to-5t for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 27 May 2011 23:13:10 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:38915 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1QQ4LF-00043s-NH for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 27 May 2011 17:13:09 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.92]:57553) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1QQ4LD-00043e-Ix for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 27 May 2011 17:13:08 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1QQ4LC-0003Is-QG for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 27 May 2011 17:13:07 -0400 Original-Received: from mtaout22.012.net.il ([80.179.55.172]:50015) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1QQ4LC-0003Io-Ip for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 27 May 2011 17:13:06 -0400 Original-Received: from conversion-daemon.a-mtaout22.012.net.il by a-mtaout22.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) id <0LLV00J00HIDMT00@a-mtaout22.012.net.il> for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 28 May 2011 00:13:05 +0300 (IDT) Original-Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 ([77.126.221.158]) by a-mtaout22.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) with ESMTPA id <0LLV00JJXHLO23A0@a-mtaout22.012.net.il>; Sat, 28 May 2011 00:13:01 +0300 (IDT) In-reply-to: <83tycfc0l0.fsf@gnu.org> X-012-Sender: halo1@inter.net.il X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Solaris 10 (beta) X-Received-From: 80.179.55.172 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 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.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:139779 Archived-At: > Date: Sat, 28 May 2011 00:09:31 +0300 > From: Eli Zaretskii > Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org > > > From: "Drew Adams" > > Date: Fri, 27 May 2011 13:40:37 -0700 > > > > I'm curious. Why is it a good idea that `C-b' and `left' are no longer bound to > > the same command? > > Because `left' and `right' behave differently depending on the > bidirectional context, whereas C-f and C-b are independent of it. And another reason: if `left' sometimes moves _forward_ in the buffer, binding it to a command called `backward-char' is a lie.