From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Stefan Monnier Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Maintenance suggestion on an emacs mode Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2008 15:57:36 -0400 Message-ID: References: <87wsn667kw.fsf@gmail.com> <87d4ojxgj2.fsf@gmail.com> <87zlrlskgd.fsf@photon.caeruleus.net> <87lk35wr0u.fsf@gmail.com> <87fxtdjg1z.fsf@stupidchicken.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1208980729 27758 80.91.229.12 (23 Apr 2008 19:58:49 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2008 19:58:49 +0000 (UTC) Cc: Ralf Angeli , Paul R , Emacs Devel To: Chong Yidong Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Wed Apr 23 21:59:21 2008 connect(): Connection refused 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 1Jol7f-0003c5-LT for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 23 Apr 2008 21:59:20 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:37200 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Jol70-0007jB-2k for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 23 Apr 2008 15:58:38 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1Jol6V-0007YA-Ia for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 23 Apr 2008 15:58:07 -0400 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1Jol6Q-0007Vm-4A for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 23 Apr 2008 15:58:06 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=40521 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Jol6P-0007Vb-QJ for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 23 Apr 2008 15:58:01 -0400 Original-Received: from ironport2-out.pppoe.ca ([206.248.154.182] helo=ironport2-out.teksavvy.com) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1Jol6P-0007ad-ER for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 23 Apr 2008 15:58:01 -0400 X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: ArwEAB8yD0hFxIud/2dsb2JhbACBUqxX X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.25,701,1199682000"; d="scan'208";a="18968164" Original-Received: from smtp.pppoe.ca (HELO smtp.teksavvy.com) ([65.39.196.238]) by ironport2-out.teksavvy.com with ESMTP; 23 Apr 2008 15:57:36 -0400 Original-Received: from pastel.home ([69.196.139.157]) by smtp.teksavvy.com (Internet Mail Server v1.0) with ESMTP id DXC65636; Wed, 23 Apr 2008 15:57:36 -0400 Original-Received: by pastel.home (Postfix, from userid 20848) id 8237B8064; Wed, 23 Apr 2008 15:57:36 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: <87fxtdjg1z.fsf@stupidchicken.com> (Chong Yidong's message of "Wed, 23 Apr 2008 01:28:24 -0400") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.0.60 (gnu/linux) X-detected-kernel: by monty-python.gnu.org: Genre and OS details not recognized. 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:95855 Archived-At: >> Please don't change those. There are already bindings for them (except >> for the last two) in place. Setting `reftex-extra-bindings' really is >> only there to spare users the hassle of defining bindings in the user >> space themselves. > Could you add a comment to reftex.el saying that we are aware of the > violation of the "no C-c [letter] binding" rule, with the explanation > you gave above? > Paul R writes: >>> Please don't change those. There are already bindings for them (except >>> for the last two) in place. Setting `reftex-extra-bindings' really is >>> only there to spare users the hassle of defining bindings in the user >>> space themselves. >> >> I have no particular position on that. It is in a move to clean up >> sources from C-c[a-Z] bindings. >> As far as this particular modification is concerned, I think it is >> acceptable because ... > With the above change, we can leave these alone. Thanks. Maybe we could apply his change, but make C-c the default (i.e. the default is to break the convention). So it would still be easy for someone to unbreak the conventions. Stefan