Re: `C-b' is backward-char, `left' is left-char - why?

[David Kastrup <dak@gnu.org>]

"Drew Adams" <drew.adams@oracle.com> writes:

> I did not try to provide a solution.  My point was to _ask_ whether
> changing these bindings globally is necessary.

Yes.

> I simply asked whether there wasn't some way to avoid changing them.

No.

> There's been a lot of heat, but not much in the way of an explanation.

You simply don't listen.

> It's been said that they are needed for bidi.  It hasn't been
> explained why they need to be in effect if bidi is disabled.

Because if they are supposed to be different when bidi is switched on,
that makes them different.  You don't gain anything by replacing
left-char with maybe-wrongly-backward-char-if-user-is-Drew.  You still
need something different from backward-char.

> How the implementation would move between having these new bindings in
> place for bidi and not making them when bidi is disabled is not
> something I would try to answer.  I asked whether it was possible.

Differing behavior is done by different keybindings.  That's where we
are.  If you worry about remapping of backward/forward-char, one could
make left-char/right-char look up the respective remap.  So far I have
seen no indication that there is any actual problem (instead of
hypothetical problems) solved by this.  So this complication does not
seem worth the trouble.  Worse, it will cause people not to fix stuff
that will break under bidi.

> Well, good.  Is there a way to get it?  That's the question.

The answer is no.  Not reasonably.  I have little doubt that you will
not accept this answer and prolong this thread as long as anybody cares
to react and then some.

-- 
David Kastrup