From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Alan Mackenzie Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Proposal: new default bindings for winner and windmove Date: Sun, 23 Jun 2024 12:05:22 +0000 Message-ID: References: <7133BE83-064B-43A4-A193-61376605222C@dancol.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="33873"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" Cc: Stefan Kangas , Stefan Monnier , emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Daniel Colascione Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Sun Jun 23 14:06:14 2024 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([209.51.188.17]) by ciao.gmane.io with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1sLLz3-0008a5-LI for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Sun, 23 Jun 2024 14:06:13 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1sLLyQ-0007SS-Hj; Sun, 23 Jun 2024 08:05:34 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1sLLyP-0007RZ-0c for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 23 Jun 2024 08:05:33 -0400 Original-Received: from mail.muc.de ([193.149.48.3]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1sLLyM-0005VE-Jn for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 23 Jun 2024 08:05:32 -0400 Original-Received: (qmail 92495 invoked by uid 3782); 23 Jun 2024 14:05:23 +0200 Original-Received: from muc.de (p4fe15813.dip0.t-ipconnect.de [79.225.88.19]) (using STARTTLS) by colin.muc.de (tmda-ofmipd) with ESMTP; Sun, 23 Jun 2024 14:05:23 +0200 Original-Received: (qmail 22011 invoked by uid 1000); 23 Jun 2024 12:05:22 -0000 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <7133BE83-064B-43A4-A193-61376605222C@dancol.org> X-Submission-Agent: TMDA/1.3.x (Ph3nix) X-Primary-Address: acm@muc.de Received-SPF: pass client-ip=193.149.48.3; envelope-from=acm@muc.de; helo=mail.muc.de X-Spam_score_int: -18 X-Spam_score: -1.9 X-Spam_bar: - X-Spam_report: (-1.9 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.io gmane.emacs.devel:320512 Archived-At: Hello, Daniel. On Sun, Jun 23, 2024 at 07:14:25 -0400, Daniel Colascione wrote: > On June 23, 2024 6:05:13 AM EDT, Alan Mackenzie wrote: > >Hello, Stefan and Stefan. > >On Fri, Jun 21, 2024 at 15:39:09 -0500, Stefan Kangas wrote: > >> Stefan Monnier writes: > >> > A few years ago, Daniel suggested: > >> >> Likewise, for windmove, we can bind C-x 4 {left, right, up, down} and DWIM > >> >> for people automatically, enabled by default. > >> > AFAICT we still don't actually provide any keybindings for the windmove > >> > commands by default. Did I miss a controversy about that, or did it > >> > just fall through the cracks? > >> FWIW, I don't remember any controversy either, so my guess is that it > >> just fell through the cracks. > >I would be against using C-x 4 or C-x 5 for > >windmove (or anything else) by default. Key sequences with arrow keys > >are too few, and too precious, to use for anything not critically > >important. > >windmove is not critically important. Either it isn't used at all by a > >user (likely most users), or it is used all the time (by a small number > >of users). In the latter case, the user will already have bound the > >commands to key sequences, since they are not useful called from M-x. > >It wasn't so long ago that we were removing default key bindings so as > >to free them up for other uses. I don't think there's any reason to > >reverse that policy for windmove. It just isn't important enough. > >There will be users who've bound these key bindings for their own uses. > >Let's not mess these users around. > The arrow keys don't have any meaning after C-x 4 today, and the > meaning I've been wanting to give them is useful and logical. It's useful to you, personally. It wouldn't be useful to me. > I've been using the arrow key setup for years locally and it works very > well. It really does make window management much less annoying, and > it's not like we're going to use the arrow keys for anything else under > C-x 4. You've been using C-x 4 for your purposes, and other users will be using them for their purposes, likely to be different from yours. > As for windmove being used by users --- well, wouldn't it be nice if we > had metrics like other modern software projects? Xah Lee developed just such a program, inviting users to submit their results to him for aggregation. This was around 10 years ago. What came out was largely that different users use Emacs very differently - an everyday command for one user was totally unused by another. > But that aside, even if windmove is sparsely used today, might that be > because it's inconvenient to use without bindings? It might, but it's unlikely. Even C-x 4 would be inconvenient for me. I have other-window bound to and rarely have more than three or four windows in a frame. I'd hit two or three times rather going through the rigmarole of C-x 4 . As I said, C-x 4 are convenient to you for windmove commands. They'll be convenient to other users for other commands in just the same way. You're proposing imposing your setup on everybody. I'm against this. [ .... ] -- Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).