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 16:36:50 -0800 Message-ID: References: <315B881CD79A43A9BABD5145EF4BFFE6@us.oracle.com> <34509A44D5C34DEE8812226B2CB83C93@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 1295311071 9896 80.91.229.12 (18 Jan 2011 00:37:51 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2011 00:37:51 +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 Tue Jan 18 01:37:46 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 1PezZy-0002aG-1i for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 18 Jan 2011 01:37:46 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:35029 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1PezZx-0007FG-CW for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 17 Jan 2011 19:37:45 -0500 Original-Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=49843 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1PezZs-0007E4-Uw for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 17 Jan 2011 19:37:42 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1PezZr-00009e-Ii for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 17 Jan 2011 19:37:40 -0500 Original-Received: from rcsinet10.oracle.com ([148.87.113.121]:60346) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1PezZr-00009a-8S for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 17 Jan 2011 19:37:39 -0500 Original-Received: from acsinet15.oracle.com (acsinet15.oracle.com [141.146.126.227]) by rcsinet10.oracle.com (Switch-3.4.2/Switch-3.4.2) with ESMTP id p0I0bX5B031463 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Tue, 18 Jan 2011 00:37:35 GMT Original-Received: from acsmt355.oracle.com (acsmt355.oracle.com [141.146.40.155]) by acsinet15.oracle.com (Switch-3.4.2/Switch-3.4.1) with ESMTP id p0I0bWio025695; Tue, 18 Jan 2011 00:37:32 GMT Original-Received: from abhmt013.oracle.com by acsmt353.oracle.com with ESMTP id 966830781295311008; Mon, 17 Jan 2011 16:36:48 -0800 Original-Received: from dradamslap1 (/10.159.220.70) by default (Oracle Beehive Gateway v4.0) with ESMTP ; Mon, 17 Jan 2011 16:36:47 -0800 X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11 In-Reply-To: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.5994 Thread-Index: Acu2ooOoLoj29UwXQtqTJdh/69x3RQAABzvw 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:134676 Archived-At: > I can't see that there is something like an "unbound error" when > entering a key that it not bound. All I can see is a message saying > "THE-KEY is undefined". Yes, Lennart, that is what I meant - that error. Sorry if that wasn't clear. > How do you get that "unbound error"? By hitting a key in Emacs that is not bound in Emacs and that doesn't get grabbed by something outside Emacs. > I got the impression from this > discussion that your code somehow depends on it. My code has absolutely nothing to do with it. Zero. Nada. I have no code that has anything to do with this, and I do not foresee having any. Dunno how you imagined that, but I seriously doubt that you "got the impression from this discussion". Or else you're not reading well. I simply do not see why we should remove control from users for no particular reason. That's all. Why are you arguing against continuing to grant them this control they have now? You've agreed that they can continue to bind M-f4. Why not let them also write code that does something when the Alt-f4 key is pressed and Alt-f4/M-f4 is not bound? Why are you trying to prevent that? What do you care? What's the cost? What's the big deal? I repeat all that I've suggested: d> (a) let users bind `M-f4' in Emacs, but if unbound d> (b) look it up in `w32-passthrough-events' and d> if there pass it to Windows, or if not there d> (c) raise an unbound error. Is that a big deal? The only thing I added to Stefan's suggestion was (c). He did not say what he envisioned for case (c). What do you propose for (c)? We can discuss what the default value of `w32-passthrough-events' should be. In particular, whether it should contain the key Alt-f4/M-f4. (You would argue yes, me no - but I don't feel strongly about that, as I've said several times now.) But let's at least agree to give users and their code the choice this way, letting them handle/access the unbound error for _any keys_ if they want to. They may never want to. But why proscribe it? And in terms of cost I get the impression that this approach is a relatively simple one. At least that's how Stefan characterized it: s> A simpler solution is to dump the problem onto the user: s> setup a `w32-passthrough-events' where the user can specify s> events that should be passed on to Windows's standard lib s> rather than handled by Emacs. Do I have a special use case in mind for handling such unbound errors? No, I do not. The ways people use Lisp are unlimited. And handling raised errors is one control mechanism they sometimes use. If you were to propose that we remove the possibility that anyone can use `setq' to set a variable to the value `5792468', I would not have a use case in mind to counter that either. But I'd have the same reaction and make the same argument: WTF? Why limit users this way, if you don't have to?