From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Lennart Borgman Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Bikeshedding go! Why is unbound? Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2011 21:53:38 +0100 Message-ID: References: <315B881CD79A43A9BABD5145EF4BFFE6@us.oracle.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1295297653 12592 80.91.229.12 (17 Jan 2011 20:54:13 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2011 20:54:13 +0000 (UTC) Cc: monnier@iro.umontreal.ca, pj@irregularexpressions.net, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Drew Adams Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Mon Jan 17 21:54:09 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 1Pew5X-0002BK-1Q for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 17 Jan 2011 21:54:07 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:37890 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Pew5W-0002Ic-G2 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 17 Jan 2011 15:54:06 -0500 Original-Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=58744 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Pew5S-0002IN-7U for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 17 Jan 2011 15:54:03 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Pew5Q-00066V-19 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 17 Jan 2011 15:54:02 -0500 Original-Received: from mail-ew0-f41.google.com ([209.85.215.41]:47400) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Pew5P-00066F-Sr for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 17 Jan 2011 15:53:59 -0500 Original-Received: by ewy27 with SMTP id 27so2767585ewy.0 for ; Mon, 17 Jan 2011 12:53:59 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=lFY4YDvK7UPPSlfxHYqW6IGjK03kaqWgCP8lJuKXjDk=; b=iv80LrBRR3vkk15WU7pfa8Qy11kU9duBgQW4s8S0kdEbJg/rk2dLmYRuybi1LM62Ur 4WrgV+Z9O7awyUhhmMIK+Gjhx6y45QeQlaWzqKoaOeScYxbWaUJpe79itULJCNK/2HYm nRf6K+HnWnpdaFsYCW0vmULVR+mgx4LogxdEQ= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=tWT/yzYkI6Uo3hB1MyN9MqXbVcUKcXakZeSUnk8yO+pBFGM347hnjsPEfQduDBaw1W RNHhoCJCWEOsTbN4Uzji2i3iYZWWfy88gt1JCz+MZDdPj/LyeFXgGd4u7WlnkyGZzgTW ObVYTQhjA3H7Pp/EcRxEwjEwMwCRaTVL4byxk= Original-Received: by 10.213.106.2 with SMTP id v2mr4415092ebo.32.1295297638929; Mon, 17 Jan 2011 12:53:58 -0800 (PST) Original-Received: by 10.213.20.148 with HTTP; Mon, 17 Jan 2011 12:53:38 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <315B881CD79A43A9BABD5145EF4BFFE6@us.oracle.com> X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 2) 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:134666 Archived-At: On Mon, Jan 17, 2011 at 9:31 PM, Drew Adams wrote: >> > So far it seems to have been agreed that in any case >> > (whatever is done or not done) both users and libraries >> > should feel free to bind M-f4 in Emacs. >> >> This is a misunderstanding. We have not even been discussing this. No >> one has said that users and libraries should not be able to bind M-f4. > > I don't know what the misunderstanding is. That the ability to bind M-f4 is something we discussed here. No one has argued that it should not be possible to bind M-f4, just as today. >> >> >> No one has suggested that Alt+F4 should be hardcoded to be >> >> >> sent to w32. >> >> > >> >> > Odd that you would say this just after you asked what other >> >> > behavior could possibly exist. >> >> >> >> Could you please be a bit more exact in your questions? >> > >> > See what you wrote at the top. =C2=A0You've made it very clear >> > that you want Alt+f4 hard-coded to pass through to Windows >> > when unbound in Emacs. >> >> Please do not try to win by dismissing important details, it is >> useless and wastes our time. You are mixing to very different things >> here. > > No idea what you're talking about. =C2=A0What details? What two things? 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. I do not understand why. Maybe it is my fault, but could we just please stop discussing such things. The only relevant thing here is what should happen when a key like M-f4 is unbound. > You stated both (a) "Yes, I actually do prefer #3 hard-coded" and (b) "No= one > has suggested that Alt+F4 should be hardcoded to be sent to w32." =C2=A0(= The latter > was in the context of handling an _unbound_ key.) =C2=A0You are someone, = not no one. > > I think (but am not sure at this point) that your position is (a): you wa= nt to > hard-code the behavior that unbound Alt+F4/M-f4 should always be sent to = w32. Yes, I prefer (a) over the current situation, but (as I said) I have nothing against making it a 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.) So, thanks, we are back at the part of the question that I believe really interests you. I have asked you what advantage you see giving a "not bound" error message when a key is unbound. I can't really see any. If a user want to see if a key is free they should use for example "C-h c" which I of course think should give relevant information. (Yes, I can see some difficulties with that since Emacs must be taught this info.)