RE: Emacs-diffs Digest, Vol 50, Issue 7

["Drew Adams" <drew.adams@oracle.com>]

> I haven't read the actual text recently, but I think it makes sense to
> mention that the current bindings predate CUA's, not to brag
> about it or to
> complain about CUA's lack of respect for Emacs's choices, but so as to
> explain why the current bindings don't play well with CUA: it's
> a historical accident.

Jumping in...

I don't know if it's true or important whether there are good reasons (I
think so) for Emacs's bindings or CUA's bindings, or whether the bindings or
the incompatibility are just historical accidents.

I'm not sure it's good to burden the user with such explanations. I would
simply point out the difference and the incompatibility. I would mention
that some people prefer one set of bindings and other people prefer the
other set of bindings - and both are available in Emacs! No need, in the
doc, to justify or try to convince people to use one or the other. Just let
readers know that there are two choices.

If there are other incompatibilities between CUA-mode and other parts of
Emacs (I have no idea), then that can also be pointed out. That might be one
reason that some people would prefer "Emacs Classique" over "Emacs CUA". If
so, it would be worth pointing out, not to sell "Emacs Classique", but to
inform users more about the consequences of the two choices.

As to mentioning priority, I don't think it matters, so Occam says
fuggeddabbowdit. It's not important that Emacs bindings were first. It might
be important that there are good reasons to use Emacs's bindings, but prior
design is not one of them, and it need not be mentioned.

 - Drew, who uses Emacs Classique, but CUA outside of Emacs when he has to

(What? Does Emacs have an outside?)