From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: "Alfred M. Szmidt" Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: A more modest proposal Date: Fri, 23 Jul 2010 06:25:20 -0400 Message-ID: References: <4C3B6A8A.80105@gmx.de> <87wrt0e81n.fsf@telefonica.net> <62E9699C07054418AB66F9C5FCB54E5C@us.oracle.com> <87sk3oe3la.fsf@telefonica.net> <1154D96E7D2F401D849266F359E44BB9@us.oracle.com> <87ocecdzou.fsf@telefonica.net> <2256C17F740A425884AD551DE7758056@us.oracle.com> <87fwzodqqm.fsf@telefonica.net> <5138CDF30B2D4B778F948015614DA7BC@us.oracle.com> <87iq4ijtdy.fsf@lola.goethe.zz> <87bpa7uu1e.fsf@kanis.fr> <877hkv2hco.fsf@catnip.gol.com> <87iq4e593w.fsf@kanis.fr> <87lj9ayp2f.fsf@stupidchicken.com> <4C493433.4010709@censorshipresearch.org> <877hkm8tz9.fsf@lola.goethe.zz> Reply-To: ams@gnu.org NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1279880734 26614 80.91.229.12 (23 Jul 2010 10:25:34 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 23 Jul 2010 10:25:34 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org To: David Kastrup Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Fri Jul 23 12:25:33 2010 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 1OcFRb-0005sR-5s for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 23 Jul 2010 12:25:31 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:51745 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1OcFRZ-00077j-Sx for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 23 Jul 2010 06:25:29 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=36279 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1OcFRS-00077H-Df for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 23 Jul 2010 06:25:22 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by monty-python.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1OcFRR-0006FI-5P for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 23 Jul 2010 06:25:22 -0400 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([140.186.70.10]:43696) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1OcFRQ-0006FE-Rb for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 23 Jul 2010 06:25:21 -0400 Original-Received: from ams by fencepost.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OcFRQ-00077W-CM; Fri, 23 Jul 2010 06:25:20 -0400 In-reply-to: <877hkm8tz9.fsf@lola.goethe.zz> (message from David Kastrup on Fri, 23 Jul 2010 10:47:54 +0200) X-detected-operating-system: by monty-python.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:127691 Archived-At: >> Having the same keybinding behave completely differently >> depending if you use a windowing system or the console is a bad >> idea. What about having C-z C-z do suspend-frame, and C-z z >> ... do undo? Not that I see a need for yet another undo >> keybinding. > > There's already a better binding for suspend-frame: "C-x C-z" > > So I'd say, just change the meaning of C-z universally to undo, > and let people use C-x C-z for suspend. That is a good idea; didn't know about that binding. I don't agree with Alfred that minimization on a window system is suitably similar to warrant the C-z keybinding as well on a window system. All in all, I don't think maintaining C-z in its current meaning is worth the trouble, particularly on window systems. I don't have strong feelings about C-z, C-x C-z for suspend-frame is good, remapping C-z completely to undo is good. As long as C-z doesn't behave completely differently on console vs. windowing systems (eg. undo vs. suspend-frame), I atleast have no qualms about remapping it.