Binding F11 and F12 to buffer-switching and file-saving by default

Binding F11 and F12 to buffer-switching and file-saving by default

[Jason Spiro]

Would it be practical:

* to bind <F11> to some kind of buffer-switching command such as
  iswitchb-buffer,

* and to bind <F12> to save-buffer, 

by default? These are very commonly used functions, so I think it 
is worthwhile to provide one-key access to them.

Regards,
Jason <jasonspiro4+news@gmail.com>

Re: Binding F11 and F12 to buffer-switching and file-saving by default

[Juanma Barranquero]

On 1/30/07, Jason Spiro <jasonspiro4+news@gmail.com> wrote:

> Would it be practical:
>
> * to bind <F11> to some kind of buffer-switching command such as
>   iswitchb-buffer,
>
> * and to bind <F12> to save-buffer,
>
> by default? These are very commonly used functions, so I think it
> is worthwhile to provide one-key access to them.

You'd have to define "practical":

 - Not all keyboards have F11 and F12
  - I don't think there's much agreement about the best way to switch
buffers (I don't use iswitchb-buffer, for example, but bs-cycle-next,
so your proposed binding is of no use to me)
 - next-buffer and previous-buffer are already in C-x <left|right>
 - save-buffer is in C-x C-s
 - Whether a command is used/useful enough to merit a one-key binding
is highly subjective (I don't use save-buffer often enough to consider
C-x C-s a burden, for example)
 - It's easy for users to do their own bindings

                    /L/e/k/t/u

Re: Binding F11 and F12 to buffer-switching and file-saving by default

[Jason Spiro]

Hi Juanma,

You make many good points.  However, I have replies to each of them.  :-)

"Juanma Barranquero" <lekktu@gmail.com> wrote:

> You'd have to define "practical"

I define it as "the benefits to new Emacs users with no .emacs file
outweigh the costs."  IMO, it is important that new users enjoy Emacs
as soon as possible.  If they enjoy it, they will continue using it
forever.

> Not all keyboards have F11 and F12

That's OK. People without those keys can use C-x C-s and C-x b.

> I don't think there's much agreement about the best way to switch
> buffers (I don't use iswitchb-buffer, for example, but bs-cycle-next,
> so your proposed binding is of no use to me)

We should pick one method.  People who don't like it can rebind the key.

> next-buffer and previous-buffer are already in C-x <left|right>

iswitchb-buffer is not bound to anything :-)

> save-buffer is in C-x C-s

On second thought, C-x C-s isn't that hard to type.  OK, so let's bind
M-x recompile to F11 instead?  Buffer switching can be bound to F12.

> Whether a command is used/useful enough to merit a one-key binding
> is highly subjective (I don't use save-buffer often enough to consider
> C-x C-s a burden, for example)

Agreed.

> It's easy for users to do their own bindings

True, but it can be handy to have useful bindings preset by default.

So, do the benefits to newbies outweigh the costs?
--Jason

Re: Binding F11 and F12 to buffer-switching and file-saving by default

[Juanma Barranquero]

On 1/30/07, Jason Spiro <jasonspiro4+news@gmail.com> wrote:

> You make many good points.  However, I have replies to each of them.  :-)

:)

> I define it as "the benefits to new Emacs users with no .emacs file
> outweigh the costs."  IMO, it is important that new users enjoy Emacs
> as soon as possible.  If they enjoy it, they will continue using it
> forever.

Well, I think an Emacs user, if he's to be an Emacs user for any
significant amount of time, needs to learn to use the .emacs file
sooner rather than later.

> That's OK. People without those keys can use C-x C-s and C-x b.

Multiplying bindings for common commands adds confusion IMHO.

> We should pick one method.  People who don't like it can rebind the key.

We already have a default method: next-buffer and previous-buffer. And
they already have a binding. The other alternatives (ido, bs,
iswitchb) have their own benefits and drawbacks (mostly added
complexity) and should be left up to the user. IMO.

> OK, so let's bind
> M-x recompile to F11 instead?

Do you really consider `recompile' a basic command that most users
*without* an .emacs file will need on a one-key binding?

> True, but it can be handy to have useful bindings preset by default.

Yeah. The really difficult issue is deciding what are the useful bindings ;-)

> So, do the benefits to newbies outweigh the costs?

That's for others to decide.

                    /L/e/k/t/u

Re: Binding F11 and F12 to buffer-switching and file-saving by default

[Stefan Monnier]

> * to bind <F11> to some kind of buffer-switching command such as
>   iswitchb-buffer,

> * and to bind <F12> to save-buffer, 

> by default? These are very commonly used functions, so I think it 
> is worthwhile to provide one-key access to them.

Actually, I find this reasoning rather odd:
- on the one hand, they're much less used than many other commands.
  Yes, it's very unlikely that a user would never use such commands in any
  given Emacs session, but as for frequency of use, it's not that high up
  the list.
- F11 and F12 are rather far, so they're not quick.  It's "one key", but
  it's not clear that it's quicker to use than C-x C-s for example.

This said, I think it probably makes sense to give default bindings to those
Fn keys rather than leave them unused.  We should keep them as "user
modifiable" keys, tho (i.e. commands bound to an Fn key should also have
a good other binding).

I'd tend to consider the Fn keys in a similar way to menu entries or toolbar
entries.  Actually maybe a good idea would be to map toolbar entries to Fn
keys: F2 presses the first button, F3 the second, etc...


        Stefan

Re: Binding F11 and F12 to buffer-switching and file-saving by default

[Richard Stallman]

Is there any convention for applications in general about the meaning
of F11 and F12?

Re: Binding F11 and F12 to buffer-switching and file-saving by default

[Eli Zaretskii]

> From: Jason Spiro <jasonspiro4+news@gmail.com>
> Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2007 05:52:36 -0500
> 
> So, do the benefits to newbies outweigh the costs?

Not so close to the release, they don't.

Re: Binding F11 and F12 to buffer-switching and file-saving by default

[Jason Spiro]

2007/1/30, Juanma Barranquero <lekktu@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 1/30/07, Jason Spiro <jasonspiro4+news@gmail.com> wrote:
...
> > I define it as "the benefits to new Emacs users with no .emacs file
> > outweigh the costs."  IMO, it is important that new users enjoy Emacs
> > as soon as possible.  If they enjoy it, they will continue using it
> > forever.
>
> Well, I think an Emacs user, if he's to be an Emacs user for any
> significant amount of time, needs to learn to use the .emacs file
> sooner rather than later.
>
Correct.

> > That's OK. People without those keys can use C-x C-s and C-x b.
>
> Multiplying bindings for common commands adds confusion IMHO.
>
Hmm. Perhaps that is true. (To the rest of you: Do you agree?)

But M-x compile and M-x recompile have no default binding. Perhaps a
better answer, then, would be to bind them to some easy-to-press
combination of keys by default. And also to bind a fast
buffer-switching command to some key combination as well.

...
> Do you really consider `recompile' a basic command that most users
> *without* an .emacs file will need on a one-key binding?

I suspect that one of the most popular uses of Emacs is programming.

M-x recompile takes time to type. M-x <UpArrow><UpArrow><UpArrow> RET
is suboptimal because you must take your mind off your work for a
moment to watch the minibuffer until the proper history entry comes
up. IMO, a keybinding that all Emacs users could use, no matter what
machine they were using, would be better.

> > True, but it can be handy to have useful bindings preset by default.
>
> Yeah. The really difficult issue is deciding what are the useful bindings ;-)
>

Yes. I wonder if people have ever studied the issue, for example,
usability researchers.

> > So, do the benefits to newbies outweigh the costs?
>
> That's for others to decide.

Yes, but as Stefan mentions in his reply to this message, we should at
least bind F11 and F12 to *something*.

Cheers,
Jason

-- 
Jason Spiro: computer consulting with a smile.
I provide web and software development services businesses worldwide.
Call or email for a FREE 5-minute consultation. Satisfaction guaranteed.
+1 (416) 781-5938 / Email: info@jspiro.com / MSN: jasonspiro@hotmail.com

Re: Binding F11 and F12 to buffer-switching and file-saving by default

[Jason Spiro]

2007/1/30, Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>:
> > From: Jason Spiro <jasonspiro4+news@gmail.com>
> > Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2007 05:52:36 -0500
> >
> > So, do the benefits to newbies outweigh the costs?
>
> Not so close to the release, they don't.
>
Could it at least be added to the TODO file? :-)

-- 
Jason Spiro: computer consulting with a smile.
I also provide training and spyware removal services for homes and businesses.
Call or email for a FREE 5-minute consultation. Satisfaction guaranteed.
+1 (416) 781-5938 / Email: info@jspiro.com / MSN: jasonspiro@hotmail.com

Re: Binding F11 and F12 to buffer-switching and file-saving by default

[Juanma Barranquero]

On 1/30/07, Jason Spiro <jasonspiro4@gmail.com> wrote:

> I suspect that one of the most popular uses of Emacs is programming.

Yeah. That doesn't mean people use compile/recompile. I almost never
use it, and I do use Emacs to do programming.

> Yes. I wonder if people have ever studied the issue, for example,
> usability researchers.

A good question.

> Yes, but as Stefan mentions in his reply to this message, we should at
> least bind F11 and F12 to *something*.

I don't agree. Free, simple keys are a relatively scarce resource. I'd
rather keep them for users.

                    /L/e/k/t/u

Re: Binding F11 and F12 to buffer-switching and file-saving by default

[Jason Spiro]

2007/1/30, Juanma Barranquero <lekktu@gmail.com>:
> On 1/30/07, Jason Spiro <jasonspiro4@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I suspect that one of the most popular uses of Emacs is programming.
>
> Yeah. That doesn't mean people use compile/recompile. I almost never
> use it, and I do use Emacs to do programming.

I suspect that many *do* use compile/recompile though :)

Could we at least bind compile/recompile to some key combo, even if not to F12?

> > Yes. I wonder if people have ever studied the issue, for example,
> > usability researchers.
>
> A good question.

Anyone know: has anyone ever conducted usability tests on any Emacs? I
suspect there are things we could do to make Emacs and its many modes
easier to learn. :-)

> > Yes, but as Stefan mentions in his reply to this message, we should at
> > least bind F11 and F12 to *something*.
>
> I don't agree. Free, simple keys are a relatively scarce resource. I'd
> rather keep them for users.

We can bind them in a way that makes users' customizations always
override the defaults. This is what was done already with the F1 key.

-- 
Jason Spiro: computer consulting with a smile.
I also provide training and spyware removal services for homes and businesses.
Call or email for a FREE 5-minute consultation. Satisfaction guaranteed.
+1 (416) 781-5938 / Email: info@jspiro.com / MSN: jasonspiro@hotmail.com

Re: Binding F11 and F12 to buffer-switching and file-saving by default

[Juanma Barranquero]

On 1/31/07, Jason Spiro <jasonspiro4@gmail.com> wrote:

> I suspect that many *do* use compile/recompile though :)

Sure. The question is whether compile and friends need easy
keybindings more than a lot of other commands.

> Could we at least bind compile/recompile to some key combo, even if not to F12?

I have no opinion on that.

> We can bind them in a way that makes users' customizations always
> override the defaults. This is what was done already with the F1 key.

User customizations can always override the defaults. That's not the point.

                    /L/e/k/t/u

Re: Binding F11 and F12 to buffer-switching and file-saving by default

[Stefan Monnier]

>> Yes, but as Stefan mentions in his reply to this message, we should at
>> least bind F11 and F12 to *something*.

> I don't agree. Free, simple keys are a relatively scarce resource.
> I'd rather keep them for users.

My proposition was not to assign them to some specific meaning, but to give
them a default binding, which the user should be free to override.
I.e. they'd stay free for users to use, but just happen to have a default
non-nil binding.


        Stefan

Re: Binding F11 and F12 to buffer-switching and file-saving by default

[David Kastrup]

Andreas Roehler <andreas.roehler@easy-emacs.de> writes:

>>> Could we at least bind compile/recompile to some key combo, even if
>>> not to F12?
>>
>> I have no opinion on that.
>>
>
> Enhancing Emacs' usability is a good idea. Respecting
> better the needs of none-programmers could gain support
> from a growing community.

Function key bindings are contentious enough that I don't think we
should press a particular set.

I think that once customization themes work reasonably well (possibly
even having the possibility to have them mode-dependent?) and we have
found a way to cover keybindings as well, having themes mimicking
various IDEs as well as possibly designing our own native set would be
somewhat natural.

But at the current point of time, I don't think that there is one
binding worth pressing on everyone.

-- 
David Kastrup

Re: Binding F11 and F12 to buffer-switching and file-saving by default

[Andreas Roehler]

>
>
>> Could we at least bind compile/recompile to some key combo, even if 
>> not to F12?
>
> I have no opinion on that.
>

Enhancing Emacs' usability is a good idea. Respecting
better the needs of none-programmers could gain support
from a growing community.

At the other hand: Don't see it could be done that way
Emacs is developed usually: it can't be done by
judgement of one or two persons alone for several
reasons:

- if this person is a skilled one, it will ignore the
  needs of beginners more or less

- if it's a beginner, he will not be able to overview
  the functioning of the whole.

Also habits, tastes of beginners and advanced users
alike are very different: there is no way as in
programming to conclude by logic alone. It needs
systematic research, collecting habits and weighting it
etc.

This work must not be done by core-developers, as it's
a process of collecting users informations, where every
user may take part.

Suggest to create a group of interested persons, which
collect the needed data to make
proposals based on them afterwards.




__
Andreas Roehler

Re: Binding F11 and F12 to buffer-switching and file-saving by default

[Stephen Leake]

Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> writes:

>> * to bind <F11> to some kind of buffer-switching command such as
>>   iswitchb-buffer,
>
>> * and to bind <F12> to save-buffer, 
>
>> by default? These are very commonly used functions, so I think it 
>> is worthwhile to provide one-key access to them.
>
> Actually, I find this reasoning rather odd:
> - on the one hand, they're much less used than many other commands.
>   Yes, it's very unlikely that a user would never use such commands in any
>   given Emacs session, but as for frequency of use, it's not that high up
>   the list.

I use 'iswitchb-buffer' a _lot_. But it is an individual preference.

> - F11 and F12 are rather far, so they're not quick. It's "one key",
> but it's not clear that it's quicker to use than C-x C-s for
> example.

I have iswitchb-buffer bound to F11, and find-file bound to F12. I
much prefer single keys (even when "far") to double keys; my wrists
have trouble reaching the control key.

Again, a very personal preference.

> This said, I think it probably makes sense to give default bindings to those
> Fn keys rather than leave them unused.  We should keep them as "user
> modifiable" keys, tho (i.e. commands bound to an Fn key should also have
> a good other binding).

I agree with the goal to "make Emacs more friendly to the
newbie". But I think that is best done via menus, not more
keybindings.

I also agree that this should be considered after the release.

> I'd tend to consider the Fn keys in a similar way to menu entries or toolbar
> entries.  Actually maybe a good idea would be to map toolbar entries to Fn
> keys: F2 presses the first button, F3 the second, etc...

I don't think that's helpful. If I like the toolbar, it's because I
use the mouse, so the function key bindings would just be redundant.
If I don't like the toolbar, I turn it off to allow more space for
buffer contents, so I would lose the labeling of the function keys.

-- 
-- Stephe

RE: Binding F11 and F12 to buffer-switching and file-saving bydefault

[Drew Adams]

> > Multiplying bindings for common commands adds confusion IMHO.
>
> Hmm. Perhaps that is true. (To the rest of you: Do you agree?)

FWIW, I do. And it does more than add confusion: it raises a shaggy mane
against Occam's Razor.

I also disagree with those who feel that it's a good idea for Emacs to bind
lots of keys, such as function keys, by default, giving as the sole
rationale ("Why not?") that users can always override them. I disagree with
the sentiment that unbound keys are virgin territory that is secretly
yearning to be ravished, paradise pleading inwardly to be paved.

Why? Binding keys by default just because they can be bound reduces
unnecessarily the possibilities for third-party libraries (i.e. those not
included in Emacs). It's generally considered good etiquette for a library
not to trample on standard Emacs bindings, when that can be avoided. If
Emacs binds everything, then what's left for other libraries?

IOW, it's not just user customizations that might need to bind keys for
particular uses, but also other libraries. And, if there is no distinction
made among standard bindings (feel free to modify these, please don't modify
those if you can avoid it, etc.), then libraries will end up overriding
bindings in no special order, and that means overriding some that perhaps we
wouldn't want overridden.

If there are some keys that are not bound by default (and not reserved for
users, by convention), then a third-party library will feel free to bind
them. If there are no such keys, or few, then we probably should classify
the standard bindings somehow, to give other libraries guidelines about
which to trample in priority.

> But M-x compile and M-x recompile have no default binding.

As someone else said, one person's gotta-have-a-quick-key command is
another's never-use-that command. Emacs developers have always weighed
considerations of common usage. They need to decide how important it is to
most users to bind such a command by default.

Just because some key has not yet been bound by default is not a sufficient
reason to bind it to something in vanilla Emacs. Leave a few herbs
untrimmed.

My own preference is that the function keys be left unbound by default,
except where there might be well-established conventions outside Emacs - for
example, for f1.

> Yes, but as Stefan mentions in his reply to this message, we
> should at least bind F11 and F12 to *something*.

That's precisely the argument I don't buy: `If it's not yet bound, that's a
good enough reason to give it a default binding.' No; some other
justification should be given, IMO.

(leave-no-key-unbound manifest-destiny seen-one-redwood-you've-seen-em-all .
more-of-the-same)

Re: Binding F11 and F12 to buffer-switching and file-saving by default

[Jiri Pejchal]

"Jason Spiro" <jasonspiro4@gmail.com> writes:

> 2007/1/30, Juanma Barranquero <lekktu@gmail.com>:
>> On 1/30/07, Jason Spiro <jasonspiro4@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > I suspect that one of the most popular uses of Emacs is programming.
>>
>> Yeah. That doesn't mean people use compile/recompile. I almost never
>> use it, and I do use Emacs to do programming.
>
> I suspect that many *do* use compile/recompile though :)
>
> Could we at least bind compile/recompile to some key combo, even if not to F12?

I have compile bound to C-x C-a. It's easy to do C-x C-s C-x C-a then.

--
Jiri Pejchal

Re: Binding F11 and F12 to buffer-switching and file-saving bydefault

[Richard Stallman]

    > > Multiplying bindings for common commands adds confusion IMHO.
    >
    > Hmm. Perhaps that is true. (To the rest of you: Do you agree?)

    FWIW, I do. And it does more than add confusion: it raises a shaggy mane
    against Occam's Razor.

I don't think it is useful to argue about this.  The way I plan to
deal with this issue is based on whether there is any general pattern
of usage of these keys in other apps.  (That's why I asked.)
Unless there is one, I'm going to leave these undefined.

Anyway, now is not the time to change it.

Re: Binding F11 and F12 to buffer-switching and file-saving by default

[JD Smith]

On Tue, 30 Jan 2007 03:47:38 -0500, Jason Spiro wrote:

> 
> Would it be practical:
> 
> * to bind <F11> to some kind of buffer-switching command such as
>   iswitchb-buffer,
> 
> * and to bind <F12> to save-buffer, 
> 
> by default? These are very commonly used functions, so I think it 
> is worthwhile to provide one-key access to them.

Under OSX, F11 shows the desktop, and F12 the Dashboard, so this would
interfere with that (or wouldn't work of the OS caught the keys first).

Re: Binding F11 and F12 to buffer-switching and file-saving by default

[Daniel Brockman]

Stephen Leake <stephen_leake@member.fsf.org> writes:

> I much prefer single keys (even when "far") to double
> keys; my wrists have trouble reaching the control key.

How can you stand using Emacs at all?

Have you tried switching control with caps lock?

-- 
Daniel Brockman <daniel@brockman.se>

Re: Binding F11 and F12 to buffer-switching and file-saving by default

[Stephen Leake]

Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> writes:

>>> Yes, but as Stefan mentions in his reply to this message, we should at
>>> least bind F11 and F12 to *something*.
>
>> I don't agree. Free, simple keys are a relatively scarce resource.
>> I'd rather keep them for users.
>
> My proposition was not to assign them to some specific meaning, but to give
> them a default binding, which the user should be free to override.
> I.e. they'd stay free for users to use, but just happen to have a default
> non-nil binding.

But then some people will _expect_ the default binding to be there,
and be surprised when it isn't.

I think the function keys should not be bound by default; let each
user (or group) bind them.

-- 
-- Stephe

Re: Binding F11 and F12 to buffer-switching and file-saving by default

[Stephen Leake]

"Jason Spiro" <jasonspiro4@gmail.com> writes:

> 2007/1/30, Juanma Barranquero <lekktu@gmail.com>:
>> On 1/30/07, Jason Spiro <jasonspiro4@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > I suspect that one of the most popular uses of Emacs is programming.
>>
>> Yeah. That doesn't mean people use compile/recompile. I almost never
>> use it, and I do use Emacs to do programming.
>
> I suspect that many *do* use compile/recompile though :)

I use 'compile'; it is bound to F5. I did not know about 'recompile'
until this discussion; reading the help now, I don't actually know
what it does, but I'm not going to worry about it :)

> Could we at least bind compile/recompile to some key combo, even if
> not to F12?

Doesn't each programming language mode bind 'compile' to something?
Ada mode binds it to C-c C-c.

And 'next-error' must be bound as well.

I don't use the language mode bindings, because I _always_ use a
makefile. But that's a personal choice.

-- 
-- Stephe

Re: Binding F11 and F12 to buffer-switching and file-saving by default

[Ted Zlatanov]

On  1 Feb 2007, stephen_leake@member.fsf.org wrote:

> And 'next-error' must be bound as well.

What do you mean?  It is bound to 

M-g M-n
M-g n
C-x `

by default according to (lisp/bindings.el).

Ted

Re: Binding F11 and F12 to buffer-switching and file-saving bydefault

[Ted Zlatanov]

On 31 Jan 2007, rms@gnu.org wrote:

>>> Multiplying bindings for common commands adds confusion IMHO.
>>
>> Hmm. Perhaps that is true. (To the rest of you: Do you agree?)
>
> FWIW, I do. And it does more than add confusion: it raises a shaggy mane
> against Occam's Razor.
>
> I don't think it is useful to argue about this.  The way I plan to
> deal with this issue is based on whether there is any general pattern
> of usage of these keys in other apps.  (That's why I asked.)
> Unless there is one, I'm going to leave these undefined.

Based on my experience, everyone loves to redefine F keys.  They are
very handy, and Emacs shouldn't touch them.

Common usage has no pattern for those keys.  F1 is "help," of course.
F2 is often "save."  The classic Norton Commander gave us file
operations on the F keys that are nice:

F3 = view
F4 = edit
F5 = copy
F6 = move
F7 = mkdir
F8 = delete
F10 = quit

A lot of users like those bindings (myself included) and they are in
the GNU Midnight Commander and in mc.el/nc.el (neither is a part of
Emacs).  They could be useful as an optional feature in Dired, for
example.

> Anyway, now is not the time to change it.

Agreed, I just wanted to mention some "classic" keybindings.

Ted