RE: C-o

RE: C-o

[Drew Adams]

> >>> What do you use it for?
> > I'm also curious to know how people use `C-o`, which I never ever use.

I wasn't going to chime in on this thread...

My use of `C-o' is, well, peculiar.  I almost
don't use it.

I keep its default binding, which I never use
it for.  I use it only to try/test a command
I want to temporarily bind to a repeatable,
simple key that won't interfere with bindings
I really do use.  I do this (fairly often):

 M-x global-set-key RET C-o <some command
 I want to use temporarily, perhaps repeatedly
 (by just holding it down)> RET

Yeah, I know, seems a waste of such a simple,
repeatable key.  But it's precisely the
uselessness to me of that binding that keeps
the key free for me mentally.  In effect, I've
unconsciously tossed it onto the No-Default
Free List.

Needless to say, I do NOT want its default
binding to be changed to some command that's
useful but not repeatable.

I dread this thread, given that it has the
possibility that Emacs will change the useless
binding of `C-o' to some command that's useful
but not repeatable.  (Repeatable keys not at
the end of a prefix key are indeed rare).

IOW, it's a bad default binding, but therein
lies its usefulness: it could be worse.

[ The only reasonable alternative to binding a
  simple repeatable key to a repeatable command
  is to bind it as a prefix key.  That's what
  we've done for keys such as `C-x'.  That's
  OK.  But to bind a simple repeatable key to a
  command that, e.g., prompts for something is
  a mortal sin. Thou Shalt Not Waste. ]

  - Church of Emacs

I was content to let this sleeping dog lie.
Now that it's awakened, Bonjour les dégats...

RE: C-o

[Daniel Colascione]

On July 2, 2024 11:41:55 AM EDT, Drew Adams <drew.adams@oracle.com> wrote:
>> >>> What do you use it for?
>> > I'm also curious to know how people use `C-o`, which I never ever use.
>
>I wasn't going to chime in on this thread...
>
>My use of `C-o' is, well, peculiar.  I almost
>don't use it.
>
>I keep its default binding, which I never use
>it for.  I use it only to try/test a command
>I want to temporarily bind to a repeatable,
>simple key that won't interfere with bindings
>I really do use.  I do this (fairly often):
>
> M-x global-set-key RET C-o <some command
> I want to use temporarily, perhaps repeatedly
> (by just holding it down)> RET
>
>Yeah, I know, seems a waste of such a simple,
>repeatable key.  But it's precisely the
>uselessness to me of that binding that keeps
>the key free for me mentally.  In effect, I've
>unconsciously tossed it onto the No-Default
>Free List.
>
>Needless to say, I do NOT want its default
>binding to be changed to some command that's
>useful but not repeatable.
>
>I dread this thread, given that it has the
>possibility that Emacs will change the useless
>binding of `C-o' to some command that's useful
>but not repeatable.  (Repeatable keys not at
>the end of a prefix key are indeed rare).


If the default binding for C-o changed, how would your workflow change? Are you imagining we'd bind C-o to some *new* functionality for which we didn't have other bindings, forcing you to forego this functionality, change your habits, or bind the new functionality to some other key yourself?

>
>IOW, it's a bad default binding, but therein
>lies its usefulness: it could be worse.
>
>[ The only reasonable alternative to binding a
>  simple repeatable key to a repeatable command
>  is to bind it as a prefix key.  That's what
>  we've done for keys such as `C-x'.  That's
>  OK.  But to bind a simple repeatable key to a
>  command that, e.g., prompts for something is
>  a mortal sin. Thou Shalt Not Waste. ]
>
>  - Church of Emacs
>
>I was content to let this sleeping dog lie.
>Now that it's awakened, Bonjour les dégats...
>

Re: C-o

[Dr. Arne Babenhauserheide]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 421 bytes --]

Drew Adams <drew.adams@oracle.com> writes:

>> >>> What do you use it for?
>> > I'm also curious to know how people use `C-o`, which I never ever use.
>
> I wasn't going to chime in on this thread...

I regularly use C-o. It’s pretty useful to add newlines without
automation which cuts in on pressing Enter.

Best wishes,
Arne
-- 
Unpolitisch sein
heißt politisch sein,
ohne es zu merken.
draketo.de

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 1125 bytes --]

Re: C-o

[Alfred M. Szmidt]

Seeing how hard it is to agree on adding a new keybinding where none
exist, can we not descend into madness where we fload ideas to modifiy
things that have existed in Emacs since TECO days -- suggesting to
modify C-o is a hornets nest that one shouldn't touch.

Re: C-o

[Stefan Monnier]

> Seeing how hard it is to agree on adding a new keybinding where none
> exist, can we not descend into madness where we fload ideas to modifiy
> things that have existed in Emacs since TECO days -- suggesting to
> modify C-o is a hornets nest that one shouldn't touch.

To clarify: I started this `C-o` subthread for the sole purpose of
understanding what I'm missing.  I have no intention to change the `C-o`
binding (I'd even argue it's good to keep such a short "useless" binding
around since it acts as a kind of "user-reserved" key).


        Stefan

Re: C-o

[Eli Zaretskii]

> From: "Alfred M. Szmidt" <ams@gnu.org>
> Cc: drew.adams@oracle.com, dmitry@gutov.dev, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca,
>  luangruo@yahoo.com, acm@muc.de, stefankangas@gmail.com, emacs-devel@gnu.org
> Date: Tue, 02 Jul 2024 13:18:34 -0400
> 
> Seeing how hard it is to agree on adding a new keybinding

It isn't hard, at least not in this case.  You just sometimes need to
ignore messages posted here that don't affect the actual
decision-making process.

> can we not descend into madness where we fload ideas to modifiy
> things that have existed in Emacs since TECO days -- suggesting to
> modify C-o is a hornets nest that one shouldn't touch.

Don't worry, C-o will not be changed any time soon.  People can talk
all they want, it's a free forum.

RE: [External] : Re: C-o

[Drew Adams]

> (I'd even argue it's good to keep such a short "useless" binding
> around since it acts as a kind of "user-reserved" key).

Great minds think alike. ;-)

Re: Re: C-o

[chad]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 813 bytes --]

First someone posts a message saying effectively "I am curious about
people's use of [a keybinding]. I am *not* suggesting any change."

Then there are multiple messages from long-standing members of the mailing
list, objecting to the idea of changing [the keybinding].

Then there's a post from a long-time maintainer, saying essentially
"getting things done is not necessarily hard; you just sometimes need to
ignore a bunch of messages posted to emacs-devel".

On the one hand, accidents happen, we don't need "email police", etc. On
the other hand it surely seems like conversation and cooperation via
emacs-devel is vastly worse than it was in the 90's, 2000's, and 2010's.

Is there anything that can/should be done, aside from "everyone try to do a
better job with their own communication"?

Thanks,
~Chad

[-- Attachment #1.2: Type: text/html, Size: 1030 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 92 bytes --]

---
via emacs-tangents mailing list (https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-tangents)

Re: C-o

[Daniel Colascione]

Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> writes:

>> Seeing how hard it is to agree on adding a new keybinding where none
>> exist, can we not descend into madness where we fload ideas to modifiy
>> things that have existed in Emacs since TECO days -- suggesting to
>> modify C-o is a hornets nest that one shouldn't touch.
>
> To clarify: I started this `C-o` subthread for the sole purpose of
> understanding what I'm missing.  I have no intention to change the `C-o`
> binding (I'd even argue it's good to keep such a short "useless" binding
> around since it acts as a kind of "user-reserved" key).

Same here.  It might also be useful to think about whether open-line can
be made more useful or DWIM-y in a way that doesn't break compatibility.

Re: C-o

[Stefan Monnier]

> Same here.  It might also be useful to think about whether open-line can
> be made more useful or DWIM-y in a way that doesn't break compatibility.

Many people mentioned the use of `C-o` specifically because it's not as
DWIMish as RET, so it sounds like it's probably better to leave
it alone.


        Stefan