From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Kaushal Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: =?UTF-8?B?UmU6IEMteCA4IHNob3J0aGFuZHMgZm9yIOKJpCBhbmQg4oml?= Date: Tue, 12 May 2015 10:14:58 -0400 Message-ID: References: <871timg8fn.fsf@mbork.pl> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e01184cb0fc97d50515e320ef X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1431440166 29272 80.91.229.3 (12 May 2015 14:16:06 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 12 May 2015 14:16:06 +0000 (UTC) Cc: Paul Eggert , Artur Malabarba , Emacs developers , Stefan Monnier , Yuri Khan To: Drew Adams Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Tue May 12 16:16:05 2015 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1YsAya-0003Gi-Vt for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 12 May 2015 16:16:05 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:43284 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1YsAyV-00039R-DV for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 12 May 2015 10:15:59 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:58525) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1YsAyG-00039M-Bx for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 12 May 2015 10:15:45 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1YsAyC-0002ub-3H for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 12 May 2015 10:15:44 -0400 Original-Received: from mail-yh0-x22e.google.com ([2607:f8b0:4002:c01::22e]:33089) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1YsAyB-0002uF-Lh for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 12 May 2015 10:15:39 -0400 Original-Received: by yhcb70 with SMTP id b70so3266652yhc.0 for ; Tue, 12 May 2015 07:15:38 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type; bh=wA5P/xKomyDWiZrNcuFfVZRlKdeCFVM8KRFuASyDWkw=; b=qyrRmsatV3jlR7lsj3y2P5D1de5w4lzcuHlujtXENEEbGZiQDxYQLxKQw0EsCf0ob6 CahJaenzadMJ3+1XVcuj7zj7fTd3UGLcNvlHKiDL9xtok+Q6AM9b8w+v8AUf4bhQpb1K xCgIh8kQvOMm5BO+4gt5hp3Ykx/ROWbEhXCCk0UA2lgxWMKqgv/EHidWXJl12t73KiWQ 8gdDEG4z+phq0jqeSie9TX/arel7/zXNArpCEc+GJlho5WFZ71YNjG+eDD3E83vyPkC9 ZQfMSJPA1IcdEVv87M+qJPzqhnACaGNdony8V3vHMbcZRoI+nGN+DNkfXMD3O96W1rx/ EWyw== X-Received: by 10.236.202.72 with SMTP id c48mr2143142yho.57.1431440138735; Tue, 12 May 2015 07:15:38 -0700 (PDT) Original-Received: by 10.13.198.2 with HTTP; Tue, 12 May 2015 07:14:58 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Error: Malformed IPv6 address (bad octet value). X-Received-From: 2607:f8b0:4002:c01::22e X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:186453 Archived-At: --089e01184cb0fc97d50515e320ef Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable In reply to Drew's email that seems to have started by mistake in a new thread > And I'm wondering why we need to provide such "shortcuts". It is > *trivial* for anyone to bind keys to insert any chars one uses often. > I don't see how we're doing anyone any favors by this. > > What's so special about any particular set of Unicode chars that we > should bother to offer a predefined set of bindings for them (even if > turning on that set is optional)? Now we're even down to looking to > bind =E2=89=AB or =C2=BB? How silly is that? (Well, I'm sure those char= s are > very useful for some people - but those who need 'em can bind 'em.) > > Where's the beef? As I mentioned in the first email, I can easily bind those to what I want. I was motivated to email about this because I found the binding "_<" for = =E2=89=A4 a bit unnatural. In all the coding languages I used, =E2=89=A4 was always represented as "<=3D" and so thought that that binding would make more sens= e. Then I realized that "<" was already taken for the =C2=AB and so we could n= ot have the "<=3D" binding. And then the thread evolved as you see. As Stefan mentioned, the "<" binding was added at the time when probably the other unicode characters were probably not popular. So this was just a little gesture to "upgrade" the out-of-box bindings for "C-x 8" since we are already setting a few default bindings for some unicode characters. I am fine with this discussion ending here and I will go back to using a little hydra with a bunch of unicode chars I use frequently. -- Kaushal Modi On Mon, May 11, 2015 at 6:13 PM, Stefan Monnier wrote: > > I disagree. I use =C2=AB and =C2=BB from time to time, and I /never/ w= anted to > > use =E2=89=AA or =E2=89=AB. > > FWIW I'm in the same situation. > > > Stefan > --089e01184cb0fc97d50515e320ef Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
In reply to Drew's email tha= t seems to have started by mistake in a new thread

> And I'm wondering why we= need to provide such "shortcuts".=C2=A0 It is
> *trivial* f= or anyone to bind keys to insert any chars one uses often.
> I don&#= 39;t see how we're doing anyone any favors by this.
>
> What's = so special about any particular set of Unicode chars that we
> should = bother to offer a predefined set of bindings for them (even if
> turni= ng on that set is optional)?=C2=A0 Now we're even down to looking to
= > bind =E2=89=AB or =C2=BB?=C2=A0 How silly is that?=C2=A0 (Well, I'= m sure those chars are
> very useful for some people - but those who n= eed 'em can bind 'em.)
>=C2=A0
> Where's the beef?

= As I mentioned in the first email, I can easily bind those to what I want.<= /span>

I was motivated to ema= il about this because I found the binding "_<" for=C2=A0=E2=89=A4 a bit unnatural. In= all the coding languages I used,=C2=A0=E2=89=A4 was always represented as "<=3D" and= so thought that that binding would make more sense.

=
Then I realized that "<" was already taken for the=C2=A0<= /span>=C2=AB and so we could n= ot have the "<=3D" binding.

And the= n the thread evolved as you see.
<= span style=3D"font-size:12.8000001907349px">
As Stefan menti= oned, the "<" binding was added at the time when probably the = other unicode characters were probably not popular.

=
So this was just a little gesture to "upgrade" the out-of-bo= x bindings for "C-x 8" since we are already setting a few default= bindings for some unicode characters.

I am fine= with this discussion ending here and I will go back to using a little hydr= a with a bunch of unicode chars I use frequently.


--
Kaushal Modi

On Mon, May 11, 2015 at 6:13 PM, Stefan Monn= ier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> wrote:
> I disagree.=C2=A0 I use =C2=AB and =C2=BB from time to time= , and I /never/ wanted to
> use =E2=89=AA or =E2=89=AB.

FWIW I'm in the same situation.


=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 Stefan

--089e01184cb0fc97d50515e320ef--