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 go! Why is unbound? Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2011 13:56:14 -0800 Message-ID: References: <315B881CD79A43A9BABD5145EF4BFFE6@us.oracle.com> 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 1295301425 32366 80.91.229.12 (17 Jan 2011 21:57:05 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2011 21:57:05 +0000 (UTC) Cc: monnier@iro.umontreal.ca, pj@irregularexpressions.net, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: "'Lennart Borgman'" Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Mon Jan 17 22:57:01 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 1Pex4M-0005ND-MC for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 17 Jan 2011 22:56:58 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:55304 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Pex4M-0001hh-9C for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 17 Jan 2011 16:56:58 -0500 Original-Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=33749 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Pex4H-0001hO-PP for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 17 Jan 2011 16:56:54 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Pex4G-0004gt-Ol for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 17 Jan 2011 16:56:53 -0500 Original-Received: from rcsinet10.oracle.com ([148.87.113.121]:25897) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Pex4G-0004d7-J9 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 17 Jan 2011 16:56:52 -0500 Original-Received: from rcsinet13.oracle.com (rcsinet13.oracle.com [148.87.113.125]) by rcsinet10.oracle.com (Switch-3.4.2/Switch-3.4.2) with ESMTP id p0HLuk3L013138 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Mon, 17 Jan 2011 21:56:47 GMT Original-Received: from acsmt353.oracle.com (acsmt353.oracle.com [141.146.40.153]) by rcsinet13.oracle.com (Switch-3.4.2/Switch-3.4.1) with ESMTP id p0HLcPIH009230; Mon, 17 Jan 2011 21:56:45 GMT Original-Received: from abhmt017.oracle.com by acsmt354.oracle.com with ESMTP id 932193711295301373; Mon, 17 Jan 2011 13:56:13 -0800 Original-Received: from dradamslap1 (/10.159.220.70) by default (Oracle Beehive Gateway v4.0) with ESMTP ; Mon, 17 Jan 2011 13:56:13 -0800 X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11 In-Reply-To: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.5994 Thread-Index: Acu2iKuKCJiE/sg3QxynUvrpp2cDTgAA5tMQ 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:134669 Archived-At: > No one has argued that it should not be possible to bind > M-f4, just as today. Yes, Lennart, we agree about that. > It looks to me you are mixing the question whether M-f4 should be > possible to bind with what should happen when it is unbound. No, I am not mixing them. I am saying that for the same reason we want users to continue to be able to bind M-f4, I want them to continue to be able to determine what happens when it is unbound. Let users decide how Emacs behaves. We don't need to decide this for them. > > I think (but am not sure at this point) that your position > > is (a): you want to hard-code the behavior that unbound > > Alt+F4/M-f4 should always be sent to w32. > > I have nothing against making it a user choice. If you have nothing against it, then you agree to making it a user choice. A user should be able to configure Emacs to reflect her preferred default behavior at startup and also change the behavior at runtime. User choice. > (It can't be a library choice AFAICS since no library is > involved for an unbound key, but of course > a library coiuld provide ways for the user to make this choice.) Any Lisp code today can decide to capture the unbound error using `condition-case', as mentioned earlier. You can determine at the Lisp level what happens when an unbound error is raised. If the behavior of unbound M-f4 is determined by a variable, and if the value is set to `error-if-unbound', then Lisp code can still do tomorrow what it can do today. But only if the value is `error-if-unbound'. > I have asked you what advantage you see giving a > "not bound" error message when a key is unbound. See my response to the same question from Oscar. Today, users and Lisp code can take any action they want in this regard. Why prevent that tomorrow? Why take away user control? Your initial position was, I think, that Emacs must _always_ pass Alt-f4 to w32 (I could be wrong). Now you agree to letting Emacs users bind it and keep control if they want. Good. Why not give them complete control over the behavior? What do you lose by giving them more choice? By making this a user option, the only remaining question becomes the default value. You would no doubt argue for pass-through-if-unbound. I would argue for error-if-unbound. But we should at least be able to agree on letting the user decide, whatever the default behavior might be.