From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Stefan Monnier Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Standardizing more key bindings? Date: Fri, 02 Oct 2020 10:00:04 -0400 Message-ID: References: <83zh55f7bv.fsf@gnu.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="27678"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/28.0.50 (gnu/linux) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org, rms@gnu.org, thibaut.verron@gmail.com, dgutov@yandex.ru To: Eli Zaretskii Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Fri Oct 02 16:01:35 2020 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 1kOLcs-00075l-Mj for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Fri, 02 Oct 2020 16:01:34 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:52572 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1kOLcr-0006dU-L5 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Fri, 02 Oct 2020 10:01:33 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:53278) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1kOLbZ-0005x2-Pu for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 02 Oct 2020 10:00:13 -0400 Original-Received: from mailscanner.iro.umontreal.ca ([132.204.25.50]:15160) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1kOLbW-0007uN-E7; Fri, 02 Oct 2020 10:00:12 -0400 Original-Received: from pmg1.iro.umontreal.ca (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by pmg1.iro.umontreal.ca (Proxmox) with ESMTP id C684B100271; Fri, 2 Oct 2020 10:00:07 -0400 (EDT) Original-Received: from mail01.iro.umontreal.ca (unknown [172.31.2.1]) by pmg1.iro.umontreal.ca (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 4939A100091; Fri, 2 Oct 2020 10:00:06 -0400 (EDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=iro.umontreal.ca; s=mail; t=1601647206; bh=69oYrqHY00AD7C+VKqxfaxMDdTirzhtwo4B4hyfhAcE=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:References:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=JSslV2/z6hdVstepTpWXv7LTNDg59y2jkO4VRTJ4JKPRhtU8Hdv8zQH+TTFjvdfBK fzAqLNS5ZaYoiQBQ2wPUQJdlnncPEDLNfSOwtrtrUGTSaV1je8f8CiH3aYsjIkau8F Rc9ZHYrYrv6fCQsDiPL3srwopuweL8r5/WwgYKFc45PbHEPVcZxptjmt9yZTnD9OOX NuS9g6nuDZIHLtXH32lmXxi+pGaZusx1SZ70vgXDpRsZcRhQC/LoRlVaQ6ef441BsE Mgnwp6aC1ONivPei/LeTD6npJX5+KQqDhYNg30QuuMSAx6hTlQbZjkXV1/YYs4gG8n ZWwepXEPj8yNA== Original-Received: from alfajor (unknown [45.72.232.131]) by mail01.iro.umontreal.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id D3FE11204F6; Fri, 2 Oct 2020 10:00:05 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: <83zh55f7bv.fsf@gnu.org> (Eli Zaretskii's message of "Fri, 02 Oct 2020 09:52:20 +0300") Received-SPF: pass client-ip=132.204.25.50; envelope-from=monnier@iro.umontreal.ca; helo=mailscanner.iro.umontreal.ca X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: First seen = 2020/10/02 09:56:25 X-ACL-Warn: Detected OS = Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] X-Spam_score_int: -42 X-Spam_score: -4.3 X-Spam_bar: ---- X-Spam_report: (-4.3 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_HELO_NONE=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: 2.1.23 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" Xref: news.gmane.io gmane.emacs.devel:256946 Archived-At: >> The first question is, should thee bindings be conceptually global? >> I don't think so. >> >> To make them global means they conflict with a lot more other bindings, >> and that makes the task of choosing these bindings harder. >> It also means that the change would be a bigger incompatibility. >> >> Thus, I think we should plan on having these bindings only >> in the major modes that involve talking to an intepreter. > > They could also be defined by prog-mode, which is (or should be) the > parent of all programming modes. My experiment in this direction (which I posted earlier in this thread) makes `prog-proc-mode` a derived mode of `prog-mode` because not all programming languages have a corresponding REPL. Stefan