From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: =?utf-8?Q?=C3=93scar_Fuentes?= Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.help Subject: Re: Is Elisp really that slow? Date: Wed, 15 May 2019 16:18:26 +0200 Message-ID: <87sgtfsswd.fsf@telefonica.net> References: <20190514235412.kncazq45szlum2gr@Ergus> <46f308ff-5a70-8ccc-310b-48167088ff5a@yandex.ru> <87woirsvdb.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="64904"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@blaine.gmane.org" User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/27.0.50 (gnu/linux) To: help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Original-X-From: help-gnu-emacs-bounces+geh-help-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Wed May 15 16:18:58 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 1hQukD-000GfR-P6 for geh-help-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Wed, 15 May 2019 16:18:57 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:37821 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1hQukC-0002Wm-QL for geh-help-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Wed, 15 May 2019 10:18:56 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:59105) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1hQujr-0002VX-Hb for help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Wed, 15 May 2019 10:18:36 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1hQujq-0006Lv-NO for help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Wed, 15 May 2019 10:18:35 -0400 Original-Received: from [195.159.176.226] (port=36414 helo=blaine.gmane.org) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1hQujq-0006LL-HD for help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Wed, 15 May 2019 10:18:34 -0400 Original-Received: from list by blaine.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1hQujo-000GAc-Le for help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Wed, 15 May 2019 16:18:32 +0200 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ Cancel-Lock: sha1:/I27LTjisbTPcFZ4BdIDTuwBXic= 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:120383 Archived-At: Dmitry Gutov writes: > On 15.05.2019 16:25, Óscar Fuentes wrote: >> OTOH C-Mode supports M-; (comment-dwim) which is an standard method of >> (un)commenting code in Emacs. > > Right. So why the other binding? comment-dwin != comment-region >> Pretending that every mode conforms to the same rules is >> counterproductive, because there are vast differences among them. > > We also have different bindings for similar things in similar modes. In principle, fixing those would be beneficial. OTOH, forcing existing users to adapt just for the cause of coherence with modes they don't use is not desirable either. >> We shall strive for pragmatism, not for bureaucracy. > > Sure, but I don't understand your negative reaction in this case. I think I already explained the issue, but I'll put it this way: what you would do about C-c C-c on C-Mode and how that would help their users?