From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Deniz Dogan Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Bikeshedding go! Why is unbound? Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2011 16:54:30 +0100 Message-ID: References: <87sjx7z7w4.fsf@telefonica.net> <83pqsbmf6j.fsf@gnu.org> <87k4ijz07h.fsf@telefonica.net> <2460D97DEA4047B3B9DF92C4A80981EF@us.oracle.com> <57BF13882D6E494286547F293FE9D03B@us.oracle.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1294849003 21155 80.91.229.12 (12 Jan 2011 16:16:43 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2011 16:16:43 +0000 (UTC) Cc: Stuart Hacking , =?ISO-8859-1?Q?=D3scar_Fuentes?= , Lennart Borgman , emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Drew Adams Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Wed Jan 12 17:16:38 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 1Pd3NF-0001Ez-6u for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 12 Jan 2011 17:16:37 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:39224 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Pd3NE-0006wP-6V for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 12 Jan 2011 11:16:36 -0500 Original-Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=53080 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Pd3Mh-0005r8-PJ for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 12 Jan 2011 11:16:24 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Pd3Eo-00011x-SZ for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 12 Jan 2011 11:07:57 -0500 Original-Received: from mail-iw0-f169.google.com ([209.85.214.169]:39564) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Pd32M-0006BF-0A for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 12 Jan 2011 10:55:02 -0500 Original-Received: by iwn40 with SMTP id 40so693768iwn.0 for ; Wed, 12 Jan 2011 07:55:01 -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=mwSWNbJWEmM25K7Sq+vUpUTEYGc74x4JVkIg4uyFolk=; b=wATQsrmnHGrqKvyqbmd+HgUCTnRQvW+m4lrpwDv6pzO8Qu8wYdVqpfT4HjEoUbijgU veJgIKGJSWz1+73ZE9WHdas4iETxKCbC25eEj17qlRDdRpV8Gt6nOTfFlQjcgoh7TqK+ reGDRmyDrOgzMspEf9mF6PH+0a9JFYeK0MxFA= 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=Gc+8HlBFUpJ+Dx8X2VRwVSbyt2km6cZL16nrqpSL4P2YBZFBnvCMHYz2iB7tupkgBv vkhdf1NbtyrBLWC4sjpBAmr3vMtL0Cp2owPDFEcZeWi5ie6BtW4QfyNqKLRquksIWbnE zXEj9Cp/m5fjgVsVPHYF6YQ2ZBHmC1t9tveXk= Original-Received: by 10.231.10.200 with SMTP id q8mr1135204ibq.122.1294847700982; Wed, 12 Jan 2011 07:55:00 -0800 (PST) Original-Received: by 10.231.32.197 with HTTP; Wed, 12 Jan 2011 07:54:30 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <57BF13882D6E494286547F293FE9D03B@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:134464 Archived-At: 2011/1/12 Drew Adams : >> > There is no reason for Emacs to bind Alt-F4 (or M-f4) by default. >> > It should be kept for anyone to bind to anything. =A0(Just >> > one more opinion.) >> >> On the other hand, it wouldn't be a big deal for Emacs to have a >> default binding. Anyone who cares enough will be able to rebind it. >> >> There's always discussion about making Emacs a more well behaved >> application on Windows and this seems like a low-hanging fruit? > > I respectfully disagree. > > 1. There's _no special reason_ to give _this_ key a default binding. > > 2. While it is true that a default binding can be overridden, that's not = a good > enough argument for making a _particular_ default binding. > > 3. Default bindings tend to become sacrosanct in the eyes of many over ti= me. =A0A > library (or even a user) that binds one can be thought by some to be goin= g > against the grain (convention). > > 4. It's not because some key is unbound that we should give it a default > binding. =A0If the argument that a default binding can always be overridd= en were > sufficient for creating default bindings, then we would bind _every_ key = by > default. =A0Even a random default binding would be bound to please someon= e, and > "Anyone who cares enough will be able to rebind it." > > 5. Slippery slope. =A0Windows uses key XYZ for blah, so we bind it. =A0Th= en someone > says "Hey, we respect the Windows binding by default for XYZ, why not als= o for > UVW and RST and ...? > > "It wouldn't be a big deal for Emacs to have a default binding" - epitaph= on a > tombstone in Boot Hill, Tombstone, Arizona. > I'm neither for nor against this proposal anymore, but I'd like it if we keep the discussion going, so here are my thoughts. 1. But there is a point to it! I may be wrong, but isn't M-f4 what most desktop environments, e.g. KDE and Gnome, use to close a window by default? To a new Emacs user, which we have to consider, M-f4 *not* closing the window on a Windows system could potentially be confusing and maybe even irritating. The new user maybe doesn't know that she can make new key bindings herself and even if she knows she *can* make new bindings, maybe she doesn't know what command to bind it to. save-buffers-kill-terminal probably isn't what first comes to mind. 4. No one is saying we should bind M-f4 because it is unused. It's just that it could have a very useful default binding for Windows users which just happens to be unused today. --=20 Deniz Dogan