From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Po Lu Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Proposal: new default bindings for winner and windmove Date: Mon, 01 Jul 2024 21:20:50 +0800 Message-ID: <878qyl6yfh.fsf@yahoo.com> References: <87ed8d75ji.fsf@yahoo.com> <7c50ece8-ab8f-4705-9d53-3a0ac69e7904@gutov.dev> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="10025"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Cc: Alan Mackenzie , Stefan Kangas , Stefan Monnier , Daniel Colascione , emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Dmitry Gutov Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Mon Jul 01 15:23:13 2024 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 1sOGzx-0002SE-5S for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Mon, 01 Jul 2024 15:23:13 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1sOGz5-0003Zz-SG; Mon, 01 Jul 2024 09:22:20 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1sOGyo-0003YK-48 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 01 Jul 2024 09:22:02 -0400 Original-Received: from sonic313-56.consmr.mail.ne1.yahoo.com ([66.163.185.31]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1sOGyS-0000Dn-FQ for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 01 Jul 2024 09:22:01 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yahoo.com; s=s2048; t=1719840092; bh=HN3AaA4AyFYe31QhwSkSMc3aXZfDnPc7giRxqa12OfQ=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:From:Subject:Reply-To; b=LGuSJE6kHR2iCvthXU2pHSPDvnLLX7Xuj8yw8nQTOtgQJFSy2xQTKjLa8hdk5pDYK7RYR/d6ko2UgQeFtp8fq2Y8h6ENqoXDZ2cs2xFWE1yNnnrSmymCdvN3/SeH+noTN/ef6BKj/xMuSzPhgvGBpN8auHpHIdv8Hdx9MiRmN53vCvekmkHWaXlSN433OLvHIfX83nw1IKgtf8yP3VfxFANOC/YmikAbBRYdDpKqx3fjQ1BPMPGg1+uTnkXPMIP/004U3YajBtIM5+W3+m6nHnV0vBq6Y0mgjXimqHEZPIOQeo1sMZxOnfEl9k3wPhhwbTnY9gRhC31oL+ml+4Uhyw== X-SONIC-DKIM-SIGN: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yahoo.com; s=s2048; t=1719840092; bh=x8/FHdPe7742Lklc6Y74o3qjLf0YlcXGTMO3GKQdQO6=; h=X-Sonic-MF:From:To:Subject:Date:From:Subject; b=ItXDGoH35eRrHUt2bZx4v05XZqYelzzR2Q8qZDUd2J6GtW89uH5YdBWD4Z/astwTbTV/gCT8q4mHxwuSY/H/ZhmPruYgJhZLHrNZkvTvFW2EKms2qd+jyVlyu4raxYcK5XIosIp21MH/MNWns5kyuvdCK3VzK6LPJc0vOuszS1otoHOvETXRaDN02LJb71CJCpwULNUAlm4d/A7ZPGXU2BnkRLXoqhqaLrS8o7gApHC3a3Z9xvXqNRkR6F/OMkPc02ZU1gPzlj3S3g93hi+XOXV+yFbKoODGS2nS8hgtDD7lXVC4wipA5zWrSq1eHyZdV05y/7TwEr+piAGN/B0cFw== X-YMail-OSG: R2Hk3WwVM1lfJ.fYcDR527vUm.QI8q68MMdiszBs.CeFS.ZpaCHooh0sIgkOU6j oPaGp2dd8Hdpnjyfm3z6sXpMBfsTlMnGfQkfV3BBUT_cAYim0MeS3qmxb_w7TUIOoAi3rzwUeuWe .e2nME5awOpopLsv1YJggQgmXqvs8UIwmH3QpsJH4UErmfOuqLdalypaW.8bQ.qrq6tJBS1dfSBp 4skswbzQJ9Salfack4wM7pATDmzTpDY9cdfBa_1BS0v7l01faC86baKMlSnZmsMflxe6mvvN9xxM zReqbD.8AQ.xtY9YLBpBJjqvN4En2rTt71Hu7PZ_eXdh.yeu_cFC.._VNOD22iWeW5tajrDMfkjo oZAss_VNegsafzoYiw43x8BO9dXDRfgO3wo6Jhl65gJLQXd_f2yxLlj8trQV3pPgy_hC2Aej.7Ww uIV5lkjCNsY04fo8lsBv6q2DCrXoY2ec5MHnIOHxNGciQJMUDO8xXF5pglUW5QADNhA11l77HgR3 1NOS.OhqmtuLPY3nhuVnlD7MHfw3KmvnoWe_ql5dmVJUE6Th_R2gi.KA1DZ5rCOrATohuBgzY7Mq vpCsBiguW4IKJf0aYG4Lg5urtJC.DfTnoKUFXsUv4TgSSR.4h50ZaisDZBhrd1bLq3mL9BUqq_qc K7tVxxanMqF2T25iJ5XU83DAbaOYFz_8Mr_GSN9P5Ql.THkHpwrjW55LNERU.AAgEYUbzHQ5.uzr k7AI5QA_5czKlAoB6dSRTZ6YtTYf19EAcR1fxW3_mHpUdyoDZxZUnR2qmtGuHJa_xD6Wa0G8SEOT ls7qt5NCtkdSea2ZMDB7Gv.GzTEsnRRq.4wbHV77vg X-Sonic-MF: X-Sonic-ID: f43bcb89-80c2-4ceb-90b5-6b4399839ee8 Original-Received: from sonic.gate.mail.ne1.yahoo.com by sonic313.consmr.mail.ne1.yahoo.com with HTTP; Mon, 1 Jul 2024 13:21:32 +0000 Original-Received: by hermes--production-sg3-7b469d9f6-ct6gp (Yahoo Inc. Hermes SMTP Server) with ESMTPA ID e8500b6c1bcb726761f01db42a223070; Mon, 01 Jul 2024 13:21:22 +0000 (UTC) In-Reply-To: <7c50ece8-ab8f-4705-9d53-3a0ac69e7904@gutov.dev> (Dmitry Gutov's message of "Mon, 1 Jul 2024 14:12:03 +0300") X-Mailer: WebService/1.1.22407 mail.backend.jedi.jws.acl:role.jedi.acl.token.atz.jws.hermes.yahoo Received-SPF: pass client-ip=66.163.185.31; envelope-from=luangruo@yahoo.com; helo=sonic313-56.consmr.mail.ne1.yahoo.com X-Spam_score_int: -16 X-Spam_score: -1.7 X-Spam_bar: - X-Spam_report: (-1.7 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_INVALID=0.1, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 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-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.io gmane.emacs.devel:321018 Archived-At: Dmitry Gutov writes: > Your stats are off. Any evidence to back this claim? Have you, perhaps, developed strong opinions on the subject, more worthy of consideration than a questionable identification of persons as problems? Is it really wise to steer this discussion further off course towards impugning persons, and in short order, specific persons among us? > No it wasn't. I'll give one example of what is _NOT_ an acknowledgement: > ...I haven't seen why in this case binding these keys is a > particularly bad idea. The original argument is that providing these > bindings would somehow override user customization. They > won't. There's no deprivation of user customization, so the "scarcity" > of arrow key bindings is irrelevant. Now the objection is over > "clutter"? Does an arrow key binding somehow create more clutter than > some other binding? There's nothing special about these bindings. "I haven't heard you." "What you said is false." "You're WRONG." "You're moving the goalposts." "There is NOTHING of substance to what you have said." And one more: > Again, you're making a general argument against adding any new > bindings whatsoever. I don't think that's a good thing. The very same > argument would have applied to the vc and project default bindings. "You're arguing TOO GENERALLY, i.e. WRONG!" "Therefore, I think you're wrong." [Totally immaterial and accomplished facts which may or may not be reexamined in a different light with the benefit of hindsight.] And, the grand finale, the snub to end all snubs: >> This is just one, and by far not the most compelling, of many >> objections to introducing new default keybindings, but one of which a >> recent example comes to mind: C-x x u has for many years been bound >> in my sessions to a command that deletes a buffer's undo list, >> usually in the interests of security. The consequences of a >> stranger's unsuspectingly typing the same to invoke rename-uniquely >> might easily have been catastrophic. > > This attitude is why Doom Emacs exists. A live software project is one > that changes. A dead one prioritizes stasis over user experience. > > Nothing we're talking about here will disturb your custom > keybindings. Your experience will work just as it did before. In what sense does this even purport to address the scenario I illustrated in such particular terms? Now, then, consider: https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/emacs-devel/2024-06/msg00926.html How many of those issues which I raised have since been addressed? If they have, where are these answers, and what is their relation to my questions?