From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Stefan Huchler Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.help Subject: Re: Is Elisp really that slow? Date: Sun, 19 May 2019 17:18:51 +0200 Message-ID: <87h89qtquc.fsf@mail.de> References: <20190514235412.kncazq45szlum2gr@Ergus> <20190516161408.4dov3dwk5h4yoizn@Ergus> <838sv6cmwt.fsf@gnu.org> <20190516202327.5cgy2s4kppy3ahxa@Ergus> <871s0yqg2i.fsf@telefonica.net> <3210C8E9-7A74-47D6-81A0-470948E6D09C@gmail.com> <87r28xq0j1.fsf@telefonica.net> <576240a5-c92a-5cf8-898b-43f214a2b580@yandex.ru> <83imu9beyn.fsf@gnu.org> <8463581c-c40f-a66a-5c9c-0995a3b45cd0@yandex.ru> <83bm01b83i.fsf@gnu.org> <66e5fc8d-5cf4-89cd-5c4f-7fad581a97f5@yandex.ru> <83zhnl9pak.fsf@gnu.org> <6c23e6a7-91b9-92db-0f2d-ac11fdf5a35c@yandex.ru> <83woip9mgs.fsf@gnu.org> <83tvdr8yxd.fsf@gnu.org> <874l5rnwsp.fsf@telefonica.net> <87y333m2yz.fsf@telefonica.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Info: blaine.gmane.org; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:195.159.176.226"; logging-data="190394"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@blaine.gmane.org" User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/26.1 (gnu/linux) To: help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Original-X-From: help-gnu-emacs-bounces+geh-help-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sun May 19 17:19:17 2019 Return-path: Envelope-to: geh-help-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([209.51.188.17]) by blaine.gmane.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1hSNan-000nOk-1C for geh-help-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Sun, 19 May 2019 17:19:17 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:49949 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1hSNam-0008PY-27 for geh-help-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Sun, 19 May 2019 11:19:16 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:36493) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1hSNab-0008NU-ER for help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sun, 19 May 2019 11:19:06 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1hSNaa-0006ww-83 for help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sun, 19 May 2019 11:19:05 -0400 Original-Received: from [195.159.176.226] (port=57276 helo=blaine.gmane.org) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1hSNaa-0006tk-1H for help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sun, 19 May 2019 11:19:04 -0400 Original-Received: from list by blaine.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1hSNaW-000n5W-JH for help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sun, 19 May 2019 17:19:00 +0200 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ Cancel-Lock: sha1:QQ/a20v1IIvud3v8ZAEn+hkfYGU= X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] X-Received-From: 195.159.176.226 X-BeenThere: help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.21 Precedence: list List-Id: Users list for the GNU Emacs text editor List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: help-gnu-emacs-bounces+geh-help-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: "help-gnu-emacs" Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.help:120552 Archived-At: Óscar Fuentes writes: > Why those modes that you take as models for C-c C-c use precisely that > binding for sending text to an inferior process? Because it is the most > used action and, hence, it is natural to use a keybinding that is fast > and easy to type. > > That's the same reason why Org-mode uses C-c C-c for its most frequent > actions, although you pretend to remove that convenience because > "consistency"... when in fact you'll be reducing consistency! > > Likewise, (E)shell and CC-Mode use C-c C-c because it is easy to relate > to the associated action *and* because it is easy to type. > > Thus, you also would reduce Emacs' ergonomics and mnemonics because of > your false idea of consistency. > > It is important to understand why things are as they are before acting > as if those who made them were incompetent and the world is depending on > us to fix their glaring mistakes. I replaced as example C-c C-c in org mode (edit-special) with Menu + d + d, the problem is that vanilla Emacs doesn't allow that kind of bindings as far as I know: (:map xah-fly-e-keymap ("e" . (lambda () (interactive) (if org-src-mode (org-edit-src-exit) (org-edit-special))))) But I have no standard keyboard, but the fly-keys can also be accessed with Space + d + d. (in command mode) And it's e in the code because I use dvorak. d is easier to hit as c, and C is not more rememberable then d it's completely randomly chosen. Also I would argue that most people press C-c C-c with left control instead of the ergonomic way to use the right control therefor you train people to use unergonomic keychords. But the main problem is not the char you use but that you have to hold this modifiers, which "reduces ergonomics" as compromise I would also be ok with having some sort of sticky keys? and you press once Ctrl release then press c c. But this is not even a optional feature in emacs: https://www.emacswiki.org/emacs/StickyModifiers And I would argue it should be the default behaviour, but it should at least be a opiton. So don't claim it has to do with mnemonics or ergonomics it has historic reasons not more not less. I would also argue that consistence is not that important. But another suggestion for that, if C-c C-c is meant as shortcut for a "important-function" why not have a binding for "do-important-action" or "do-major-action" and depending on mode that functions calls the important function of the mode. So that the user can choose globaly a keybinding for that and don't has to do that for 80 modes seperately. and the developer of the mode just somewhere sets which function is bound to C-c C-c by setting: (setq mode-important-function 'compile...) That would give at least so much consistancy that you don't have to change the keybinding 50 times in 50 modes if you want to change it, and in some where I was to lazy yet I still have to press C-c C-c and in some I press my Menu + e + e.