M-o should work in enriched-mode as usual

M-o should work in enriched-mode as usual

[Jean Louis]

I am fine that M-o is re-configured for some other functions, but not
fine that M-o does not work in enriched mode. It should work as usual
in the enriched mode, or different key bindings with same face setting
functions shall be available in the enriched mode.

Jean

Re: M-o should work in enriched-mode as usual

[Lars Ingebrigtsen]

Jean Louis <bugs@gnu.support> writes:

> I am fine that M-o is re-configured for some other functions, but not
> fine that M-o does not work in enriched mode. It should work as usual
> in the enriched mode, or different key bindings with same face setting
> functions shall be available in the enriched mode.

facemenu makes some sense in enriched-mode (it's probably the only mode
where it does make sense), but I'm not sure the `M-o' binding is ideal.
Sticking it under `C-c C-<letter>' might be better.

-- 
(domestic pets only, the antidote for overdose, milk.)
   bloggy blog: http://lars.ingebrigtsen.no

Re: M-o should work in enriched-mode as usual

[Jean Louis]

* Lars Ingebrigtsen <larsi@gnus.org> [2021-03-18 06:46]:
> Jean Louis <bugs@gnu.support> writes:
> 
> > I am fine that M-o is re-configured for some other functions, but not
> > fine that M-o does not work in enriched mode. It should work as usual
> > in the enriched mode, or different key bindings with same face setting
> > functions shall be available in the enriched mode.
> 
> facemenu makes some sense in enriched-mode (it's probably the only mode
> where it does make sense), but I'm not sure the `M-o' binding is ideal.
> Sticking it under `C-c C-<letter>' might be better.

Sounds complicated.

I am fine if manual gives instructions to users to bind the function
by user how they wish and want.

But I don't know how to make it back myself to my user key. How do I
do it? Restoring is showin in the temporarily help screen, but that
does not help if I wish to bind it to a key in enriched mode, I don't
know what is the function name to bind. Help me.

Re: M-o should work in enriched-mode as usual

[Stefan Kangas]

Jean Louis <bugs@gnu.support> writes:

>> facemenu makes some sense in enriched-mode (it's probably the only mode
>> where it does make sense), but I'm not sure the `M-o' binding is ideal.
>> Sticking it under `C-c C-<letter>' might be better.
>
> Sounds complicated.

Why is it more complicated than any other mode that puts bindings under
C-c C-<letter>?

Re: M-o should work in enriched-mode as usual

[Stefan Monnier]

>>> facemenu makes some sense in enriched-mode (it's probably the only mode
>>> where it does make sense), but I'm not sure the `M-o' binding is ideal.
>>> Sticking it under `C-c C-<letter>' might be better.
>> Sounds complicated.
> Why is it more complicated than any other mode that puts bindings under
> C-c C-<letter>?

I guess part of the complication is that enriched-mode is a *minor* mode.


        Stefan

Re: M-o should work in enriched-mode as usual

[Jean Louis]

Content-Type: text/enriched
Text-Width: 70

* Stefan Kangas <<stefankangas@gmail.com> [2021-03-18 16:40]:
> Jean Louis <<bugs@gnu.support> writes:

> 

> >> facemenu makes some sense in enriched-mode (it's probably the only mode
> >> where it does make sense), but I'm not sure the `M-o' binding is ideal.
> >> Sticking it under `C-c C-<<letter>' might be better.

> >

> > Sounds complicated.

> 

> Why is it more complicated than any other mode that puts bindings under
> C-c C-<<letter>?


Too many key strokes.


Compare it:

- M-o b     -- it is quick and easy to make face bold.


- C-c C-o b -- is 3 key strokes


And I was thinking C-c will be reserverd for users.

Re: M-o should work in enriched-mode as usual

[Eli Zaretskii]

> Date: Fri, 19 Mar 2021 10:06:14 +0300
> From: Jean Louis <bugs@gnu.support>
> Cc: Lars Ingebrigtsen <larsi@gnus.org>, emacs-devel@gnu.org
> 
> And I was thinking C-c will be reserverd for users.

Only when followed by a letter.  And "C-o b" is not a letter.

Re: M-o should work in enriched-mode as usual

[Gregory Heytings]

>> Why is it more complicated than any other mode that puts bindings under 
>> C-c C-<letter>?
>
> Too many key strokes.
>

How is "C-c C-b" longer than "M-o b"?  I'd even say it's easier to type.

>
> And I was thinking C-c will be reserverd for users.
>

No: C-c LETTER is reserved for users, C-c C-LETTER for major modes, and 
C-c SYMBOL for minor modes.  (The rules are in fact a bit more detailed, 
but that's the idea.)

Re: M-o should work in enriched-mode as usual

[Stefan Kangas]

Jean Louis <bugs@gnu.support> writes:

> - M-o b     -- it is quick and easy to make face bold.
>
> - C-c C-o b -- is 3 key strokes

Why not `C-c C-b'?

Re: M-o should work in enriched-mode as usual

[Stefan Monnier]

>> - M-o b     -- it is quick and easy to make face bold.
>> - C-c C-o b -- is 3 key strokes
> Why not `C-c C-b'?

These are all supposed to be reserved for major modes, so I don't think
they should be used for `enriched-mode`.
Or at least not in its current form (maybe it would make sense to make
a major-mode for it; I wouldn't know: I never use it).


        Stefan

Re: M-o should work in enriched-mode as usual

[Eli Zaretskii]

> From: Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca>
> Date: Fri, 19 Mar 2021 12:44:58 -0400
> Cc: Lars Ingebrigtsen <larsi@gnus.org>, Jean Louis <bugs@gnu.support>,
>  emacs-devel@gnu.org
> 
> >> - M-o b     -- it is quick and easy to make face bold.
> >> - C-c C-o b -- is 3 key strokes
> > Why not `C-c C-b'?
> 
> These are all supposed to be reserved for major modes, so I don't think
> they should be used for `enriched-mode`.
> Or at least not in its current form (maybe it would make sense to make
> a major-mode for it; I wouldn't know: I never use it).

Why not do this in Text mode?

Re: M-o should work in enriched-mode as usual

[Jean Louis]

* Stefan Kangas <stefankangas@gmail.com> [2021-03-19 19:24]:
> Jean Louis <bugs@gnu.support> writes:
> 
> > - M-o b     -- it is quick and easy to make face bold.
> >
> > - C-c C-o b -- is 3 key strokes
> 
> Why not `C-c C-b'?

That is more troublesome as it means there would be no prefix, but
many keys for enriched mode.

M-o i -- for italic is handy
M-o b -- for bold is handy

but C-c C-b -- would be for bold, then C-c C-i for italic?

Doesn't that occupies so many keys? It is not necessary.

Using prefix key for enriched mode is more useful and easier to remember.

Jean