Re: `C-b' is backward-char, `left' is left-char - why?

[Mohsen BANAN]

>>>>> On Fri, 27 May 2011 16:19:16 -0700, "Drew Adams" <address@hidden> said:

  >> why do you need "C-f" and "right" to be the same thing?
  Drew> I don't.  Why do we need them to be different, by default?

  Drew> That's the question I posed (`C-b' and `left', actually).

  Drew> Haven't seen an answer yet, except that bidi needs them to be 
different.  The
  Drew> question then is why bidi's-need-for-this needs to become
  Drew> Emacs's-need-in-general (all the time, everywhere, for everyone)?

  Drew> As I said clearly several times, if it must, it must.  Really not a big 
deal.
  Drew> Just asking whether and why it must.

...

  Drew> I don't have a better idea than a minor mode, but I know _zero_ about 
bidi and
  Drew> its implementation.  Better ideas are certainly welcome.  As you said, 
"what's
  Drew> the point of changing stuff that works fine?"  If we must, we must.  
But must
  Drew> we?  Why?

If you were to view emacs as a gift from the
engineering profession to humanity, and if you
were to re-read Eli's previous note your questions
are answered.

Additionally, please let me present the
perspective of one who needs, cares-about and uses
bidi -- note that after Latin, Perso/Arabic script
is the most widely used character set family on
this planet.

Just like you, I fire up emacs with its default
settings, I go into Gnus and open a message.

That message could be in English/Globish or
Farsi/Arabic/Hebrew (فارسى/عربى) or mixed.

Then I try to reply and edit it in Farsi and use
<right> and <left> keys as they make sense in my
context. Why should that natural behavior not be
default? Why should I, as a bidi user, have to over
write any defaults to do what could be natural for
both you (non-bidi-user) and I (bidi-user). 
Are non-Latin character set users of emacs second
class citizens in your view?

Because left-to-right got done before
right-to-left, now <left> can not be different
from 'C-b'? 

Sure, there could be some lines of code related to
this that would need to change as we go from 23 to
24 (how big of a deal is that anyway?)

Please explain to us why you think that Eli's
solution is not the most reasonable? I am curious.

...محسن
...Mohsen