Re: National Language Support Functions

[Lennart Borgman (gmail)]

Juanma Barranquero wrote:
> On 12/29/06, Lennart Borgman (gmail) <address@hidden> wrote:
>
> > Please explain a little bit more.
>
> You're saying to users that (with your patch) it will work "more like
> [it does] usually in MS Windows programs", not explaining why Emacs
> does things differently, nor how (or why) that could be good. Little
> wonder they prefer it "like MS Windows programs".

I explain (very short) in another place in the documentation for 
EmacsW32 why Emacs does it that way. I try to be short here, but if you 
have a better suggestion for how to write this please tell me.

> I expect nothing. I'm explaining why I think the language on your page
> is reason enough for people to choose your patched version.

I could be more neutral, you are right. But again, some help would be 
appreciated. Maybe there is a good neutral explanation and comparision 
somewhere on the net? I assume it must be written in a language that 
makes sense to new users who are used to MS Windows.

> > Though I am getting tired of
> > saying things over and over again.
>
> That's part of the process of convincing people and getting patches 
> approved.

That is good of course, but there is just too many, but perhaps rather 
small problem on the MS Windows side, unfortunately. Since MS Windows is 
not the main target this makes it problematic to convince people.

> > What about that patch that tells
> > Emacs to save the changes when a user logs off? I included that in my
> > patched version nearly half a year ago since I did not want to loose my
> > work. Is it included in Emacs today?
>
> Why was not included? Was it deemed unnecessary, or wrong, or it just
> fell off the wayside?

I think it just fell off the wayside. The reason? See above.


> > The low level keyboard hook that allows Emacs to use the left and right
> > windows keys as Emacs meta key should in my opinion be a very
> > uncontroversial issue.
>
> That's quite a weird claim. On one hand you're championing Windows UI
> guidelines compliance; on the other, you want Emacs to steal one of
> the Windows keys, which is an uncommon thing for Windows programs to
> do. Win+R or Win+E do execute Run and Windows Explorer even if typed
> inside Notepad or Microsoft Word.

What a you trying to say? That the ability to use those keys as meta 
should be ruled out because it brakes the Windows UI guidelines? If I 
had a better choice I would take it. But steeling Alt is a far worse 
thing than steeling the Windows keys. The use of the Alt key is even 
specified in some of the Accessibility guidelines. I do not think the 
Windows keys are.

> > but it is hard for me to understand why it should be
> > scary to use a low level keyboard hook.
>
> I looked at your low-level hook code once; it wasn't scary. It was
> just complex for little gain. 

There is simply no other way to do it. It as complex as it needs to be 
and as simple as it can be.