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: Emacs-diffs Digest, Vol 50, Issue 7 Date: Sun, 7 Jan 2007 16:16:40 -0800 Message-ID: References: NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1168215559 10154 80.91.229.12 (8 Jan 2007 00:19:19 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2007 00:19:19 +0000 (UTC) Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Mon Jan 08 01:19:17 2007 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 4.50) id 1H3iEN-0005h5-6B for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 08 Jan 2007 01:19:15 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1H3iEM-000420-Fb for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sun, 07 Jan 2007 19:19:14 -0500 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1H3iDe-0003n4-5W for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 07 Jan 2007 19:18:30 -0500 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1H3iDa-0003lP-La for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 07 Jan 2007 19:18:29 -0500 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1H3iDa-0003lL-Av for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 07 Jan 2007 19:18:26 -0500 Original-Received: from [148.87.113.118] (helo=rgminet01.oracle.com) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS-1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA:32) (Exim 4.52) id 1H3iDZ-0002N6-IP for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 07 Jan 2007 19:18:25 -0500 Original-Received: from rgmgw1.us.oracle.com (rgmgw1.us.oracle.com [138.1.186.110]) by rgminet01.oracle.com (Switch-3.2.4/Switch-3.1.6) with ESMTP id l080IL58002570 for ; Sun, 7 Jan 2007 17:18:22 -0700 Original-Received: from rcsmt251.oracle.com (rcsmt251.oracle.com [148.87.90.196]) by rgmgw1.us.oracle.com (Switch-3.2.4/Switch-3.1.7) with ESMTP id l07Nbuu8009143 for ; Sun, 7 Jan 2007 17:18:21 -0700 Original-Received: from dhcp-amer-rmdc-csvpn-gw4-141-144-96-135.vpn.oracle.com by rcsmt251.oracle.com with ESMTP id 2343764861168215416; Sun, 07 Jan 2007 17:16:56 -0700 Original-To: X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.6604 (9.0.2911.0) In-Reply-To: Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3028 X-Whitelist: TRUE X-Whitelist: TRUE X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAQAAAAI= 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:64943 Archived-At: > 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?)