Re: Test Alternative initialize scheme

[Emanuel Berg <moasen@zoho.com>]

Nikolay Kudryavtsev wrote:

>> So this is obviously not the problem, so can
>> you describe it again or provide an example?
>>
> I was not talking about the relationship
> dependence, but of coexistence. For example
> there's Evil, which is a package that
> provides Vi keyboard layout. It works fine by
> itself. Then there's Ivy which is
> a minibuffer completion interface. Ivy by
> default uses vanilla Emacs key bindings.
> [...] Now the question is - who's area of
> responsibility it is to provide that?

I wouldn't use the word "responsibility" as
that sounds negative, like a burden, but let's
put it this way, it is in the Ivy people's
interest to have their software work with any
keyboard layout simply because then more people
can use it!

If it (Ivy) is really that hard coded so people
can't use their own keys this in itself is
a problem so Ivy will benefit to have the
functionality in neat functions and then people
can use whatever keys they want - I mean, they
(Ivy) will benefit from this regardless of
anyone actually using Vim keys or anything but
the vanilla layout.

So if the question isn't "who should do it?"
but "where should it be done?", and the
alternatives are


    1. Evil
    X. Ivy
    2. Spacemacs (or another fork)


The answer is (I put it in my signature, and
you'll have to flip your monitor upside down to
read it)

-- 
X