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 10:23:18 +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> <846FACC9499A447287432A783EBC1ED1@us.oracle.com> <619E8C4B48F04150BAECB7F7700A8527@us.oracle.com> <87wrm37w7w.fsf@uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> 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 1295256239 21239 80.91.229.12 (17 Jan 2011 09:23:59 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2011 09:23:59 +0000 (UTC) Cc: PJ Weisberg , Drew Adams , Emacs-Devel devel To: "Stephen J. Turnbull" Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Mon Jan 17 10:23:55 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 1PelJb-0003rt-5B for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 17 Jan 2011 10:23:55 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:44581 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1PelJa-0004cm-9z for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 17 Jan 2011 04:23:54 -0500 Original-Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=38657 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1PelJN-0004c7-H5 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 17 Jan 2011 04:23:42 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1PelJM-000416-Az for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 17 Jan 2011 04:23:41 -0500 Original-Received: from mail-ey0-f169.google.com ([209.85.215.169]:59693) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1PelJM-000410-1P for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 17 Jan 2011 04:23:40 -0500 Original-Received: by eyh6 with SMTP id 6so2271168eyh.0 for ; Mon, 17 Jan 2011 01:23:39 -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=lxnDeZZt7B72NOB2de8/EEO15W6wqozRtnh4KRwj50o=; b=k5D/Q3rQwFb5www6u8I077dupZKJ1hrCNC8KCunLrnv5sTEwA+JtAG1ZkDdrmbeGUi Uz/zkMmqFLFdRtRfjN5GmJMEqTXAr0kIfuyBv6hTHDLvxQNmf5qWZQ2R6vJVBmyGm4bc BgKWUQKEJ6fK9RFbYTjC6vzgU+q1lZv04xt+k= 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=DvQ0p7ZOUIqXuacf7iEnK8j0XZW5w9KcgAwEwE1By4GYWI1Y1criNJYoAjZhXYQeV3 oaFEn5M1n0OH8axmHKoe2SCyDP6b6P8a58PjGREIULTt9Kt0ZkqWOtM7BXPeCn4ih9gH UgnZBzhJ5BDJ3NCCBTEM5c2c2HMqjWeUVVoRY= Original-Received: by 10.213.28.12 with SMTP id k12mr3338902ebc.84.1295256219079; Mon, 17 Jan 2011 01:23:39 -0800 (PST) Original-Received: by 10.213.20.148 with HTTP; Mon, 17 Jan 2011 01:23:18 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <87wrm37w7w.fsf@uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> 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:134632 Archived-At: On Mon, Jan 17, 2011 at 9:47 AM, Stephen J. Turnbull w= rote: > > That may or may not be what he's arguing, but it seems to me the > question here is "if a key has a familiar 'generic' binding that is > applicable to and useful in Emacs, *and* Emacs itself doesn't bind > that key, should Emacs 'use' the generic binding by default?" =C2=A0And t= he > answer "yes" follows from the principle of least astonishment. Thanks. Yes. > Since Windows has a way of providing a fallback binding for events, it > seems to me that unless Emacs has a reason *not* to use that fallback, > such as "Emacs has bound a function to that event" or "in Emacs that > behavior is stupid/useless/harmful" or "the user says he doesn't like > it", it should be allowed to fall through to the fallback when the > Emacs binding is void. What I really hoped to discuss where the technical difficulties. Emacs does not currently have a way to let key binding fall back to the OS binding. I am not sure it is trivial and I have forgotten the details.