From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Richard Stallman Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: [External] : Re: Concern about new binding. Date: Sun, 07 Feb 2021 00:33:08 -0500 Message-ID: References: <20210202134950.vybbpf3iewbymfjo.ref@Ergus> <20210202134950.vybbpf3iewbymfjo@Ergus> <87zh0mmr54.fsf@gmail.com> <87tuqunw6q.fsf@telefonica.net> <835z3a5miu.fsf@gnu.org> <87lfc6nvlt.fsf@telefonica.net> <8335ye5lhj.fsf@gnu.org> <83y2g54yd0.fsf@gnu.org> <83zh0josom.fsf@gnu.org> <871rdusudz.fsf@gmail.com> Reply-To: rms@gnu.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=Utf-8 Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="13322"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" Cc: ofv@wanadoo.es, eliz@gnu.org, drew.adams@oracle.com, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Robert Pluim Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Sun Feb 07 06:34:32 2021 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([209.51.188.17]) by ciao.gmane.io with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1l8ciN-0003Md-W6 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Sun, 07 Feb 2021 06:34:31 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:46474 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1l8ciM-0001DF-T2 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Sun, 07 Feb 2021 00:34:30 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:49148) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1l8ch4-0000Oe-Mp for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 07 Feb 2021 00:33:10 -0500 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]:54500) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1l8ch3-0005vW-7X; Sun, 07 Feb 2021 00:33:09 -0500 Original-Received: from rms by fencepost.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1l8ch2-0001Rh-3K; Sun, 07 Feb 2021 00:33:08 -0500 In-Reply-To: <871rdusudz.fsf@gmail.com> (message from Robert Pluim on Fri, 05 Feb 2021 11:04:24 +0100) X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23 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-mx.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: "Emacs-devel" Xref: news.gmane.io gmane.emacs.devel:264101 Archived-At: [[[ To any NSA and FBI agents reading my email: please consider ]]] [[[ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies, ]]] [[[ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example. ]]] > I can understand why we should avoid changing C-x o o behaviour, but > what's the rationale for the capital letter after C-x rule? I think the reason is the simplicity of C-x -- that users should not have to remember one meaning for C-x a and one for C-x A, one for C-x b and one for C-x B, and so on. That's not a super-important reason. It would not be a terrible loss to eliminate that rule. And if there were only one capital letter with a special meaning after C-x, that would not be a great cost. But I don't think it would remain just one for very long. -- Dr Richard Stallman Chief GNUisance of the GNU Project (https://gnu.org) Founder, Free Software Foundation (https://fsf.org) Internet Hall-of-Famer (https://internethalloffame.org)