From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: "Drew Adams" Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: RE: Bikeshedding "user choice" Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2011 21:29:05 -0800 Message-ID: References: <87sjx7z7w4.fsf@telefonica.net><83pqsbmf6j.fsf@gnu.org><87k4ijz07h.fsf@telefonica.net><2460D97DEA4047B3B9DF92C4A80981EF@us.oracle.com><57BF13882D6E494286547F293FE9D03B@us.oracle.com><87lj2pfo81.fsf@wanadoo.es><3311B7BF884147FFB4ADD5FEB31F1F39@us.oracle.com><227F94B0AC1649C1A41082A24! 9921783@us.oracle! .com><3BA19D85DE954C00B3CC7A7C8A0BD32C@us.oracle.com> <87tyh67v9y.fsf@uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1295328607 8161 80.91.229.12 (18 Jan 2011 05:30:07 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2011 05:30:07 +0000 (UTC) Cc: 'Emacs-Devel devel' To: "'Stephen J. Turnbull'" Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Tue Jan 18 06:30:03 2011 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Pf48n-00009R-3k for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 18 Jan 2011 06:30:01 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:50384 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Pf48l-0001GB-UN for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 18 Jan 2011 00:29:59 -0500 Original-Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=49118 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Pf48e-0001G2-9u for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 18 Jan 2011 00:29:54 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Pf48a-0008Qv-Nv for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 18 Jan 2011 00:29:52 -0500 Original-Received: from rcsinet10.oracle.com ([148.87.113.121]:44112) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Pf48a-0008Qf-IQ for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 18 Jan 2011 00:29:48 -0500 Original-Received: from rcsinet15.oracle.com (rcsinet15.oracle.com [148.87.113.117]) by rcsinet10.oracle.com (Switch-3.4.2/Switch-3.4.2) with ESMTP id p0I5TjP4025817 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Tue, 18 Jan 2011 05:29:46 GMT Original-Received: from acsmt354.oracle.com (acsmt354.oracle.com [141.146.40.154]) by rcsinet15.oracle.com (Switch-3.4.2/Switch-3.4.1) with ESMTP id p0I4qFE5032353; Tue, 18 Jan 2011 05:29:44 GMT Original-Received: from abhmt015.oracle.com by acsmt354.oracle.com with ESMTP id 932775981295328542; Mon, 17 Jan 2011 21:29:02 -0800 Original-Received: from dradamslap1 (/10.159.220.70) by default (Oracle Beehive Gateway v4.0) with ESMTP ; Mon, 17 Jan 2011 21:29:01 -0800 X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11 Thread-Index: Acu2v4n5iGUQ66xUSPGBPnNJXkB+6QAAxISg In-Reply-To: <87tyh67v9y.fsf@uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.5994 X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 3) X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:134687 Archived-At: > In general, if Emacs...hasn't bound the key, fall back > to OS if available seems like a good idea (POLA). Show a `... is unbound' message is also a good idea. That's the standard behavior in Emacs (POLA). > once the user has the capability of binding a key, then she > has the choice to bind it to `ignore' or `unbound-event-error' Or to a command that passes it through to the OS? That would be the way we normally define keys in Emacs. Including the way we define default bindings. I would prefer that approach to a `w32-passthrough-events' option, as I mentioned. For one thing, `C-h M-f4' etc. would tell you what the key does (at least that it is passed to the OS). But mainly it just fits how we handle keys in Emacs. But I'm assuming that that approach is not feasible or it would have already been discussed in terms of implementation. > The additional option to change the default fallback > (yikes!) that you advocate is a YAGNI (yes, even *you* > don't *need* it!) Are you referring to the `w32-passthrough-events' option, which Stefan came up with? Yes, I think it's a good idea that if an unbound key isn't listed in the option then Emacs shows its usual that-key-is-unbound message. That message is the standard Emacs behavior for an unbound key. And no, an unbound key is not the same as a key bound to `ignore' or to a command that echoes `... is unbound'. > the question is about defaults. I haven't argued strongly about the default behavior. I expressed my preference (leave `M-f4' unbound), but I said clearly that it's not terribly important. Bind it to M-f4 by default and Emacs users will be astonished. Leave it unbound and Windows users new to Emacs will be astonished. > Sure, but surprising Emacs users doesn't matter much because > *the key is normally unbound*, and therefore they won't be > stroking it.... Ever hit a key accidentally? Ever use `C-h k' to see what a key does? Ever change platforms? I can see at least some Emacs users being surprised on Windows when they hit the key and Emacs quits. > Surprising Windows users does matter because *the key is > normally bound*, and those who use that shortcut will be > mightily annoyed. Sure, no one suggested the contrary. Windows users (and others) are surprised and mightily annoyed at first by many things in Emacs. And no, I don't say that as a reason to increase their annoyance by adding one more nuisance. I've recognized this annoyance from the beginning. There are of course lots of Windows users who never use Alt-f4, but that doesn't lessen the hurt for those who do. > Unless your goal is to cause as much pain for newbies as > possible as long as it doesn't also cause pain for old farts > (of whatever age)? That seems perverse to me, though. No, that's not my goal. I don't have a goal wrt the default behavior. I've been clear about that. I am fine with either default behavior for the key. I have my own preference, but I don't feel strongly about it.