Re: Ctrl-[ ?

["Óscar Fuentes" <ofv@wanadoo.es>]

<tomas@tuxteam.de> writes:

> On Sat, Jun 08, 2019 at 04:30:14PM +0300, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
>> > From: Óscar Fuentes <ofv@wanadoo.es>
>> > Date: Sat, 08 Jun 2019 15:06:54 +0200
>> > 
>> > Nobody is asking for a change on the default bindings, what we are
>> > saying it that the user should be allowed to set the binding the
>> > same way he does for any other binding.
>> 
>> If you or someone else believe they know enough about the Emacs
>> keyboard input processing to propose its redesign which will satisfy
>> the above requirement [...]

No, I don't know enough. I just looked at keyboard.c for several minutes
and can only understand your cautions about touching what it seems a
pile of bugfixes on top of a stack of hacks to deal with quirky
terminals shoehorning new paradigms like guis into a pre-existing
tty-based design. Oh, and the interactions with the display engine, as
if handling terminals were not complex enough on itself.

>> Current situation is nowhere near such expertise.  Suffices it to say
>> that several times during the recent years when we needed to make
>> seemingly-simple changes and fixes in that code, no one had the
>> courage to approve such changes.  For some of them, it later turned
>> out that we broke some subtle but important use cases, for others we
>> still have our fingers crossed.  So please don't expect any
>> significant redesigns in that any time soon, as long as all we do is
>> vent steam here.  We have an enormously complex piece of software on
>> our hands, and we have no better choice than going the "inconvenient"
>> ways when we want to rebind an unusual key.
>
> Well said. The only one stepping forward with some code was Stefan,
> and personally, I find it a bit discouraging

What I find discouraging is this phrase on the above quoted message:

>> ... Suffices it to say that several times during the recent years
>> when we needed to make seemingly-simple changes and fixes in that
>> code, no one had the courage to approve such changes.

I'm sure that that is not Eli's intention, but encouraging it is not.

> that folks just keep
> saying what "Emacs Should Do" without investing much effort into
> understanding what's there and what other users need/want.

Care to explain how the proposed change would take away from you?

> Software development is a collective effort, and it takes listening
> as well as talking, I think.

I listened as hard as I can, and still don't understand why you react
this way to this issue, when several times we explicitly said that
nothing would change on the default behavior.