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: Fri, 14 Jan 2011 21:27:38 +0100 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> 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 1295037287 1355 80.91.229.12 (14 Jan 2011 20:34:47 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2011 20:34:47 +0000 (UTC) Cc: PJ Weisberg , Emacs-Devel devel To: Drew Adams Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Fri Jan 14 21:34:42 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 1PdqM6-0004ss-CQ for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 14 Jan 2011 21:34:42 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:48228 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1PdqM5-0003bE-Oz for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 14 Jan 2011 15:34:41 -0500 Original-Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=51083 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1PdqFe-0000CG-DL for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 14 Jan 2011 15:28:03 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1PdqFd-0001EA-17 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 14 Jan 2011 15:28:02 -0500 Original-Received: from mail-ew0-f41.google.com ([209.85.215.41]:44596) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1PdqFc-0001E5-Qv for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 14 Jan 2011 15:28:00 -0500 Original-Received: by ewy27 with SMTP id 27so1622775ewy.0 for ; Fri, 14 Jan 2011 12:28:00 -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=OheOQdCj00WrGESSiwrCaNh2VYn446QkP/WvA/m+qGI=; b=wzGzUN04Fyi4dUPrWkkkfUABVi/k42B0QT5alIL2K9eOzE8Y7/EgbWewVJqDicQ1m8 7i/4l2f4lpE3NW7i9ZA6APcQ/lkJD/TYeWP68LKHy4Y4k7gMEDcDYNXqW4kNZRipceMV qMLQTwt0CRQxT3qw9tntpHHK8pKLt0h93LE8U= 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=Ho1VBY87In33LBwZeXHuKUQGsx+F/Q8W7RZevs66rV2O9EB+3azx/MrXU9Sh6Atuib kmzAlK19SxrqRIXka5ixEK+TUFR5R0+DLVP4MdCM2MBj/BLcMl+rmwbIHMjuGl1CRvji 5hGcyDEar61cET2sr1a0oqHJSYJgpQUCjzcNU= Original-Received: by 10.213.28.66 with SMTP id l2mr1943413ebc.71.1295036879892; Fri, 14 Jan 2011 12:27:59 -0800 (PST) Original-Received: by 10.213.20.148 with HTTP; Fri, 14 Jan 2011 12:27:38 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: 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:134545 Archived-At: On Fri, Jan 14, 2011 at 6:58 PM, Drew Adams wrote: >> I don't think the argument that "if we bind to this function >> now, we won't be able to bind it to something else later" holds up >> for this key combination. > > AFAICT no one has argued that. =C2=A0Certainly not I. > > I mainly _asked_ what our reasons are for binding it. =C2=A0(And the reas= ons given > have varied, BTW.) =C2=A0AFAICT, we have not concluded _why_ we should do= it, even if > some people are definitely in favor of doing it. > > If we do this kind of thing it is good to know why, especially because we= will > no doubt be having this same conversation again someday about some other = outside > hotkey. > > > To the extent that I do argue against Emacs binding this key by default > (actually, I don't feel super strongly about it, it's just that the reaso= ns in > favor have so far been so weak), my arguments are these: > > 1. Alt-f4 (or `M-f4') is an _easily repeatable chord_. =C2=A0Unlike `C-x = 5 0' or `C-x > C-c', you can repeat it by just holding it down. =C2=A0Such keys are valu= able - for > use in Emacs. =C2=A0By users. =C2=A0By Emacs libraries. =C2=A0Finding suc= h keys that are not > already bound or reserved or in some other way "taken" is getting harder. > > I do not like for Emacs to gratuitously "waste" keys. =C2=A0And this part= icular waste > seems pretty darn gratuitous to me, which is why I asked for the reasons = behind > it. > > > 2. Giving a default binding to this key will (yes, it seems to) discourag= e other > uses of it in Emacs. =C2=A0Over time, default bindings sometimes become s= acrosanct. As I have already said (but you might have missed) Emacs does bind Alt+F4 by default now (but does not use it). Aren't you from that perspective actually kind of defending that binding?