bindings reserved for users

bindings reserved for users

[Kai Großjohann]

[-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --]
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain; charset=iso-2022-jp-2, Size: 575 bytes --]

The manual says C-c followed by a letter is reserved for users.  I
always assumed that means C-c a through C-c z, but now Pat points out
that there are also C-c A through C-c Z as well as nonascii letters.
C-c ^[.A^[N_, hmmm...

Do we want to reserve C-c A through C-c Z for users, as well?

Do we want to reserve C-c ^[.A^[Nd (for any non-ascii letter ^[.A^[Nd), too?

IMVHO, at least a statement on uppercase ascii letters would be
useful, since they are available on any terminal.

kai

PS: I dare not think about bindings for C-c ^[$ANR^[(B and their ilk :-)
-- 
Silence is foo!

Re: bindings reserved for users

[Richard Stallman]

[-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --]
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 457 bytes --]

    The manual says C-c followed by a letter is reserved for users.  I
    always assumed that means C-c a through C-c z, but now Pat points out
    that there are also C-c A through C-c Z as well as nonascii letters.
    C-c ß, hmmm...

    Do we want to reserve C-c A through C-c Z for users, as well?

They already are reserved for users; the manual says so.
Are you suggesting we change that?  Do you think the manual
needs to say it more emphatically?

Re: bindings reserved for users

[Kai Großjohann]

Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org> writes:

> They already are reserved for users; the manual says so.
> Are you suggesting we change that?  Do you think the manual
> needs to say it more emphatically?

Maybe it wouldn't hurt to say: ... that consist of `C-c' followed by a
(lowercase or uppercase) letter.  I was confused about this issue
until I read your message.

I don't suggest to suddenly steal the bindings from the users, if
they were reserved for the users before.

What about non-ascii characters?  The characters themselves?  C-c
followed by such a character?  C-c followed by C-X where X is such a
character?  M-X where X is such a character?  I think it doesn't
really matter whether they are reserved for the users or not, but the
manual could state it.

kai
-- 
Silence is foo!

Re: bindings reserved for users

[PPAATT]

> > > ( C-h i m emacs RET m keymaps RET )
> > > ... As a user, you can redefine any key;
> > > but it might be best to stick to key
> > > sequences that consist of `C-c'
> > > followed by a letter
...
> > followed by a (lowercase or uppercase) letter.
...
> I was confused about this issue ...

Me too.

From context I understood this English was meant to be restricted to only 
letters that happen to appear as labels of keys of an actual keyboard.  
(True/false?)

Here that means QWERTYUIOP ASDFGHJKLÑ ZXCVBNMÇ.  That is, the [A-Z] of an 
English keyboard plus Ñ and Ç (i.e. add English N with ~ tilde above and add 
English C with , cedilla below).

By associating GNU Emacs with Massachusetts I was able to guess further that 
the meaning here was the more restrictive [a-zA-Z] or [a-z], but as yet I'm 
too stunningly ignorant of Emacs to know how to resolve this ambiguity over 
upper/lower case myself.

As we speak, gnu.emacs.help folk at
http://groups.google.com/groups?as_usubject=Insert%20key%20should%20be
are busy explaining to me that C-h b describe-bindings is not a good way for 
me to try and predict C-h k describe-key results.

Also that I can't reasonably expect a computer to know what kind of keyboard 
is connected to it.

To my ignorant eye, C-h k describe-key claims like:

        overwrite-mode is on insert
        C-c C-h is undefined

appear to be lies.

I have no Insert key, and C-c C-h is the only technique I've found yet for 
listing what key sequences prefixed by C-c are bound for me by default.

gnu.emacs.help folk are working to clue me in.

> http://members.aol.com/plforth/moforth/index.html
> http://members.aol.com/plforth/moforth/20020325/ofemacs.txt

I'm returning to Emacs after an eight year absence, because I need a 
reasonably capable source code editor to run inside Apple OpenFirmware boot 
Forth.

> an eight year absence

http://members.aol.com/plscsi/emacs/emacs-deja-vu.html

Pat LaVarre

Re: bindings reserved for users

[PPAATT]

> > > ( C-h i m emacs RET m keymaps RET )
> > > ... `C-c' followed by a letter ... 
...
> > Do we want to reserve C-c A through C-c Z for users, as well?
...
> Richard Stallman rms@gnu.org
> Thu, 18 Apr 2002 12:44:57 -0600 (MDT)
>
> They already are reserved for users; the manual says so.
> Are you suggesting we change that?  Do you think the manual
> needs to say it more emphatically?

Yes the GNU Emacs manual here would become more broadly
intelligible if, in place of seeing talk of C-c followed by:

... a letter ...

instead we saw whichever we mean from these less
concise statements:

... a lower case American letter ([a-z]) ...
... an American letter ([a-zA-Z]) ...
... a letter key of the keyboard ...
... any letter (American [a-zA-Z] etc.) ...

Personally I find most reasonable:

... a letter key of the keyboard ...

However, I hear we're not yet able to make life
that simple, except on the Mac?

The loss can be small, but still come across as
culturally illiterate.  For example, the intent to not
support ñ makes C-c ñ a bad substitute choice
for a missing Insert key, no matter that
"un dedo ñoco" is a missing finger of a human hand.

I say the loss is small only because I hear no more
than 1 in 6,000 Spanish words begins with the ñ letter
key of a Spanish keyboard.  That makes ñ words in
Spanish no more than 3X common as English words
beginning with the x letter key of an English keyboard.

I wonder if any English-speaking folk here bind C-c x.

Pat LaVarre
http://members.aol.com/plscsi/emacs/emacs-deja-vu.html

Re: bindings reserved for users

[Richard Stallman]

    What about non-ascii characters?  The characters themselves?  C-c
    followed by such a character?  C-c followed by C-X where X is such a
    character?  M-X where X is such a character?

Since such characters are not available on all terminals, the question
is not very important.  People won't want to use these keys in major
modes or minor modes meant for general use.  I don't think we need to
settle it now.

Re: bindings reserved for users

[PPAATT]

> > What about non-ascii characters?
...
> Date: 4/20/02 11:28:15 AM MDT
> From: rms@gnu.org (Richard Stallman)
...
> Since such characters are not available
> on all terminals, ...
> People won't want to use these keys
> in major modes or minor modes
> meant for general use.

Eh?  But Emacs by default already does bind
infamously country-specific keys to general
uses e.g:

overwrite-mode is on insert
abort-recursive-edit is on C-]
ESC is on C-[
...

People _do_ like to bind general uses to
country-specific keys?

No?

Do you mean to say C-c "letter" gives me a
mnemonic play space of my own ... only if I
learn to think in [a-zA-Z] English letters?

> only if I learn to think in ... English

Why does Emacs offer, for personal use,
by default, only the C-c "letter" keys and
some F keys?

Personally I'd prefer an escape key for
translating to Emacs from the locally
conventional key map.

For example, M-o C-c could tell me:
"kill-ring-save is on C-insert, M-w".
C-c C-c can't tell me this because in the
major-mode C, already C-c C-c means
comment-region.

> M-o

C-h b describe-bindings tells me M-n M-o M-p
are not bound, but ( C-h i m emacs RET m
keymaps RET ) doesn't mention that fact.

gnu.emacs.help may someday tell me why.

Pat LaVarre

Re: bindings reserved for users

[Richard Stallman]

    Eh?  But Emacs by default already does bind
    infamously country-specific keys to general
    uses e.g:

    overwrite-mode is on insert
    abort-recursive-edit is on C-]
    ESC is on C-[

None of those keys is country-specific as far as I know.  C-[ and C-]
are ASCII characters.  INSERT is a function key.  I don't think it is
country-specific, and it is certainly not a letter (we were talking
about country-specific *letters*).

Re: bindings reserved for users

[Stefan Monnier]

> C-h b describe-bindings tells me M-n M-o M-p
> are not bound, but ( C-h i m emacs RET m
> keymaps RET ) doesn't mention that fact.

Some bindings are unused in the global map but are used in
various particular major modes and or minor modes.  This is why
M-n and M-p and M-o are not reserved for users: they are reserved
for the use of a major modes.
You can use them, of course, but at the risk of seeing them inoperant
in some cases (e.g. M-n and M-p are very often bound to something that
goes to the "previous/next input in history")


	Stefan

Re: bindings reserved for users

[Kai Großjohann]

Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org> writes:

>     What about non-ascii characters?  The characters themselves?  C-c
>     followed by such a character?  C-c followed by C-X where X is such a
>     character?  M-X where X is such a character?
>
> Since such characters are not available on all terminals, the question
> is not very important.  People won't want to use these keys in major
> modes or minor modes meant for general use.  I don't think we need to
> settle it now.

I see you explained things in the lispref.  I propose the following
patch to the Emacs manual:  (What is the correct way to typeset
"i.e." in Texinfo source code?)

--- custom.texi.~1.47.~	Mon Apr  1 17:08:42 2002
+++ custom.texi	Mon Apr 22 13:24:29 2002
@@ -1349,7 +1349,8 @@
 key sequences are inconvenient to use.
 
   As a user, you can redefine any key; but it is usually best to stick
-to key sequences that consist of @kbd{C-c} followed by a letter.
+to key sequences that consist of @kbd{C-c} followed by a (lowercase or
+uppercase) letter, i.e. a through z and A through Z.
 These keys are ``reserved for users,'' so they won't conflict with any
 properly designed Emacs extension.  The function keys @key{F5} through
 @key{F9} are also reserved for users.  If you redefine some other key,


As a separate issue, I think if X is a nonascii character, one could
reserve C-c X for users and C-c C-X for modes.  What do you think,
Richard?

kai
-- 
Silence is foo!

Re: bindings reserved for users

[Eli Zaretskii]

> From: Kai.Grossjohann@CS.Uni-Dortmund.DE (Kai =?iso-8859-1?q?Gro=DFjohann?=)
> Date: Mon, 22 Apr 2002 13:29:01 +0200
> 
> What is the correct way to typeset "i.e." in Texinfo source code?

"i.e.@:".  Without the "@:" part, TeX might typeset the second period
as an end of a sentence (slightly more whitespace).

Re: bindings reserved for users

[Simon Josefsson]

"Eli Zaretskii" <eliz@is.elta.co.il> writes:

>> What is the correct way to typeset "i.e." in Texinfo source code?
>
> "i.e.@:".  Without the "@:" part, TeX might typeset the second period
> as an end of a sentence (slightly more whitespace).

Or rephrasing it to say "foo, i.e., bar".  At least I have learned to
do that when writing "e.g.".

(The Cc line of this mail look really weird.  Whose mailer is broken?
If it is a emacs mailer, perhaps it can be fixed.)

Re: bindings reserved for users

[Eli Zaretskii]

On Mon, 22 Apr 2002, Simon Josefsson wrote:

> "Eli Zaretskii" <eliz@is.elta.co.il> writes:
> 
> >> What is the correct way to typeset "i.e." in Texinfo source code?
> >
> > "i.e.@:".  Without the "@:" part, TeX might typeset the second period
> > as an end of a sentence (slightly more whitespace).
> 
> Or rephrasing it to say "foo, i.e., bar".

A comma after "i.e." is wrong punctuation, AFAIK.

> At least I have learned to do that when writing "e.g.".

Yes.  But "e.g." is a different thing, it does require a comma.

> (The Cc line of this mail look really weird.  Whose mailer is broken?

Mine :-(  Or, more accurately, some interaction between RMAIL's `r' 
command and feedmail I use to send the message.  I need to find time to 
debug the problem...

Re: bindings reserved for users

[Kai Großjohann]

"Eli Zaretskii" <eliz@is.elta.co.il> writes:

>> From: Kai.Grossjohann@CS.Uni-Dortmund.DE (Kai =?iso-8859-1?q?Gro=DFjohann?=)
>> Date: Mon, 22 Apr 2002 13:29:01 +0200
>> 
>> What is the correct way to typeset "i.e." in Texinfo source code?
>
> "i.e.@:".  Without the "@:" part, TeX might typeset the second period
> as an end of a sentence (slightly more whitespace).

OK.  Here is an updated patch.

--- custom.texi.~1.47.~	Mon Apr  1 17:08:42 2002
+++ custom.texi	Tue Apr 23 12:47:34 2002
@@ -1349,7 +1349,8 @@
 key sequences are inconvenient to use.
 
   As a user, you can redefine any key; but it is usually best to stick
-to key sequences that consist of @kbd{C-c} followed by a letter.
+to key sequences that consist of @kbd{C-c} followed by a (lowercase or
+uppercase) letter, i.e.@: a through z and A through Z.
 These keys are ``reserved for users,'' so they won't conflict with any
 properly designed Emacs extension.  The function keys @key{F5} through
 @key{F9} are also reserved for users.  If you redefine some other key,


Opinions?
kai
-- 
Silence is foo!

Re: bindings reserved for users

[PPAATT]

> > > From: rms@gnu.org (Richard Stallman)
...
> > > Since such characters are not available
> > > on all terminals, ...
> > > People won't want to use these keys
> > > in major modes or minor modes
> > > meant for general use.
...
> > ... Emacs by default already does bind
> > infamously country-specific keys ...
> > insert ... C-] ... C-[
...
> Date: 4/22/02 1:47:52 AM MDT
> From: rms@gnu.org (Richard Stallman)
...
> None of those keys is country-specific ...
> C-[ and C-] are ASCII characters.
> INSERT is a function key.
...
> ... we were talking about
> country-specific *letters*

Some key assumption here remains as yet unvoiced.

Agreed, [ and ] are chars of ASCII, and Insert is a
word.

But the idea of putting these particular labels on
keys of the keyboard is peculiarly American.  Even
America is divided over the Insert key: keyboards from 
Apple of California USA lack an Insert key.


> C-[ and C-] are ASCII characters.

Do we mean to say ^[ and ^] are in some sense ASCII
chars?


> > in some sense ASCII chars

I think of Emacs as binding keys in terms of what they 
conventionally self-insert.

For example, we don't say end-of-buffer is on
Meta+Shift+Dot.  We say M->.  We don't comment on the
local issue of whether Shift+Dot or some other key
chord conventionally self-inserts >.

This attitude led me to expect I could easily change
the binding of anything local conventions tells me I
can self-insert, like ALL the letters of the local
alphabet.

Somehow this is wrong thinking.

How is labelling a punctuation key ] less peculiarly
American than labelling a letter key ñ is peculiarly
Spanish?

Do we mean to say, to use Emacs, I should first learn
to type all of the ASCII chars, and then all of the
other keys typical of an American IBM PC keyboard?

And anything American that I can't discover how to
type, I should just forget it?  (Except that C-q
quoted-insert will let me insert it by octal code e.g. 
C-q 1 0 1.)


> > infamously country-specific

Part of the infamy is that C compilers see ??( and ??)
as meaning [ and ] precisely because [ and ] do not
appear in the ISO 646 "international" "repertoire" of chars.


Pat LaVarre
http://members.aol.com/plscsi/emacs/emacs-deja-vu.html

Re: bindings reserved for users

[Richard Stallman]

"I.e." should in general be followed by a comma.

Re: bindings reserved for users

[PPAATT]

> From: Kai.Grossjohann@CS.Uni-Dortmund.DE (Kai Großjohann)
...
> Opinions?

> followed by a
> (lowercase or uppercase) letter,
> i.e. a through z and A through Z.

I think we mean:

        followed by
        a letter of an American keyboard,
        i.e. a through z and A through Z.

or more concisely:

        followed by
        a US-ASCII letter
        i.e. a through z and A through Z.

or more loosely speaking:

        followed by
        an English letter
        i.e. a through z and A through Z.

I'd favour this last form of expression - precise enough
to please those few who care, loose enough to let
the ignorant pass by undisturbed.

Pat LaVarre

Re: bindings reserved for users

[Richard Stallman]

Is there a style guide that says "i.e." should not be followed
by a comma?

Re: bindings reserved for users

[Eli Zaretskii]

On Thu, 25 Apr 2002, Richard Stallman wrote:

> Is there a style guide that says "i.e." should not be followed
> by a comma?

It seems like my memory betrayed me: I thought that "i.e." shouldn't be 
followed by a comma, but now I see that the Texinfo manual does follow it 
with a comma.

Sorry for any confusion I might have caused.

Re: bindings reserved for users

[Florian Weimer]

Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org> writes:

> Is there a style guide that says "i.e." should not be followed
> by a comma?

Fowler recommends against it.  There's a discussion on the GCC list:

http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2001-11/threads.html#00416

Re: bindings reserved for users

[PPAATT]

> > > Date: 4/20/02 11:28:15 AM MDT
> > > From: rms@gnu.org (Richard Stallman)
> > ...
> > > Since such characters
> > > are not available on all terminals, ...
> > > People won't want to use these keys in major modes
> > > or minor modes meant for general use.
> > 
> > Looks to me like Emacs folk actually do
> > commonly bind rare keys for general use?
>
> Subj: Re: across terminals 
> Date: 4/26/02 8:19:16 AM MDT
> From: monnier+gnu/emacs@RUM.cs.yale.edu
>
> `e' with an acute accent is a letter, `]' is not.

Yes.  And Unicode xE9 EWithAcute often appears
as a letter key in Montreal.

> >  C-h i m emacs RET m keymaps RET
...
> The experience until now is that
> non-ASCII letters are never used
> by major modes or minor modes,
> so we [haven't needed] to decide
> whether they should be reserved for the user or not.

Curious.  I can make sense of the RMS English this way,
thank you ... except I see you didn't write exactly this.
Where I write [] brackets, you actually wrote "we don't
need" to decide?

Did you mean to say we don't need to decide the key
sequences we have reserved for the user?

Really??  We don't?  Shouldn't we state precisely
what keys we have reserved for the user?
The earlier, the clearer, the better?

> the manual's description ...
> the casual reader might confuse
> the notion of letter and character.

Good new point, thank you.  We've also heard recently
here from people confusing the notion of a lower case
English letter with other notions of letter, like upper and
lower case letters, not to mention "the letter keys".

> ...

What first drew my attention here was me failing to find
any commonly available shifted key left reserved
for the user by GNU Emacs.

For example, I'd like a short sequence like M-o C-c to
remind me "kill-ring-save is on C-insert, M-w", because
I know well the local (Windows) convention of edit-cut,
edit-copy, and edit-paste being on C-x, C-c, and C-v.

I think [ C-h i m emacs RET m keymaps RET ] tells me
Emacs reserves for my use only the single keys
F5 thru F9: no single key that I can hit without looking.

If M-n M-o M-p are not candidates to be reserved for the
user, how about the other single keys not bound by
Emacs 20.7.1 by default i.e.
C-` C-= C-; C-' C-, C-.

These I can hit on a US keyboard almost as easily as
I can hit M-n M-o M-p.  And I'd find C-= mnemonic for my
purpose.

> ...

I'm here only by cc - please feel free to banish me
back to gnu.emacs.help when appropriate.

Thanks again everyone,
Pat LaVarre
http://members.aol.com/plscsi/emacs/emacs-deja-vu.html





Subj:    Re: across terminals 
Date:   4/26/02 8:19:16 AM Mountain Daylight Time
From:   monnier+gnu/emacs@RUM.cs.yale.edu (Stefan Monnier)
...

> > From: rms@gnu.org (Richard Stallman)
> > Let's consider this issue closed
> > and NOT SPEND MORE TIME on it, OK?
> 
> This we could do by fiat, sure boss.
> 
> > I stand by what I said.
> 
> I'm new here I know, but certainly I am
> as yet failing to make sense of what you said.
> 
> Do you mean to withdraw or otherwise modify
> what you did not repeat?  That is ...
> 
> > Date: 4/20/02 11:28:15 AM MDT
> > From: rms@gnu.org (Richard Stallman)
> ...
> > Since such characters are not available on all
> > terminals, ...  People won't want to use these
> > keys in major modes or minor modes
> > meant for general use.
> 
> Looks to me like Emacs folk actually do
> commonly bind rare keys for general use?

The experience until now is that non-ASCII letters are never used by major 
modes or minor modes, so we don't need to decide whether they should be 
reserved for the user or not.

And note that we are talking about letters, not about characters.

`e' with an acute accent is a letter, `]' is not.

I think the only problem with the manual's description is that the casual 
reader might confuse the notion of letter and character.

    Stefan

Re: bindings reserved for users

[Stefan Monnier]

> > >  C-h i m emacs RET m keymaps RET
> ...
> > The experience until now is that
> > non-ASCII letters are never used
> > by major modes or minor modes,
> > so we [haven't needed] to decide
> > whether they should be reserved for the user or not.
> 
> Curious.  I can make sense of the RMS English this way,
> thank you ... except I see you didn't write exactly this.
> Where I write [] brackets, you actually wrote "we don't
> need" to decide?

I don't care about the distinction.  I think my point
was clear enough.

> What first drew my attention here was me failing to find
> any commonly available shifted key left reserved
> for the user by GNU Emacs.

That's because you misunderstood the doc.
`E' is a letter so C-c E is reserved for the user.
Or I misunderstand what you mean by "available shifted key".

> I think [ C-h i m emacs RET m keymaps RET ] tells me
> Emacs reserves for my use only the single keys
> F5 thru F9: no single key that I can hit without looking.

Indeed.

> If M-n M-o M-p are not candidates to be reserved for the
> user, how about the other single keys not bound by
> Emacs 20.7.1 by default i.e.
> C-` C-= C-; C-' C-, C-.

Feel free to use them (note that they most likely won't be available
(or only painfully which would defeat the purpose) in `emacs -nw').
But of course since they are not reserved for your use, you might
some day find that some mode uses them (for example X-Symbol uses C-=).
You can also use M-o which seems to be pretty much completely unused
(contrary to M-p and M-n which are very often used).
Many people use non-reserved key bindings all the time.


	Stefan