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: `C-b' is backward-char, `left' is left-char - why? Date: Fri, 27 May 2011 21:48:34 -0300 Message-ID: References: <6F4054004B154CFB8E2753172D316C13@us.oracle.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1306543728 23803 80.91.229.12 (28 May 2011 00:48:48 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 28 May 2011 00:48:48 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org To: "Drew Adams" Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sat May 28 02:48:44 2011 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([140.186.70.17]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1QQ7hq-0000b8-SJ for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sat, 28 May 2011 02:48:42 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:49421 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1QQ7hq-0007PP-Hu for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 27 May 2011 20:48:42 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.92]:60322) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1QQ7hn-0007PJ-Sz for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 27 May 2011 20:48:40 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1QQ7hn-0003Fd-2i for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 27 May 2011 20:48:39 -0400 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([140.186.70.10]:57565) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1QQ7hn-0003FZ-06 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 27 May 2011 20:48:39 -0400 Original-Received: from 213-159-126-200.fibertel.com.ar ([200.126.159.213]:42354 helo=ceviche.home) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1QQ7hm-0004yW-7w; Fri, 27 May 2011 20:48:38 -0400 Original-Received: by ceviche.home (Postfix, from userid 20848) id 38F99660D3; Fri, 27 May 2011 21:48:34 -0300 (ART) In-Reply-To: <6F4054004B154CFB8E2753172D316C13@us.oracle.com> (Drew Adams's message of "Fri, 27 May 2011 13:40:37 -0700") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.0.50 (gnu/linux) X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 3) X-Received-From: 140.186.70.10 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 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.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:139801 Archived-At: > Why not make bidi optional? Why not have a minor mode for the bidi > stuff, and only bind keys such as `left' to commands that are specific > to bidi when that mode is turned on? Why make such an invasive, > top-level change to Emacs? You mean that the `left' binding to `left-char' should be placed in a minor mode keymap activated by the variable bidi-display-reordering? [ I'll assume that's what you mean, if not, please tell us how you'd like to get the behavior you describe. ] I can see why you'd want that, but there are some serious problems with it: - minor mode bindings have higher precedence than major mode bindings, so suddenly major mode bindings of `left' would become ineffective. - bidi-display-reordering is intended to default to t, so any problem that the above would avoid when bidi-display-reordering is nil would only affect a minority of users, while the majority would still be affected by those problems. Stefan