[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: [External] : Re: Concern about new binding.
From: |
Drew Adams |
Subject: |
RE: [External] : Re: Concern about new binding. |
Date: |
Sun, 7 Feb 2021 18:44:06 +0000 |
> > I can understand why we should avoid changing C-x o o behaviour,
> > but what's the rationale for the capital letter after C-x rule?
>
> I think the reason is the simplicity of C-x -- that users should not
> have to remember one meaning for C-x a and one for C-x A, one for C-x
> b and one for C-x B, and so on.
I can understand that. That reason is a bit similar
to why `case-fold-search' is t by default, I guess.
And it could be considered similar to what we do wrt
"shift translation" - (elisp) `Key Sequence Input'.
On the other hand, the argument about needing to
_remember_ is not too strong IMO. (That's perhaps
especially the case nowadays, with better, including
incremental, help with key bindings.)
If there are separate bindings for `C-x a' and
`C-x A', I think it's pretty much always the case
(and I expect likely always will be the case) that
the `C-x a' binding was introduced first to Emacs,
and it will likely be bound to the more commonly
used of the two commands. And a user who uses
either and expects the other will soon enough
discover the existence of both, I think.
There are a limited number of easy-to-use keys.
I favor allowing both upper- and lowercase keys in
this context, even keys that Emacs binds by default.
(Just one opinion.)
> That's not a super-important reason. It would not be a terrible loss
> to eliminate that rule. And if there were only one capital letter
> with a special meaning after C-x, that would not be a great cost.
> But I don't think it would remain just one for very long.
I too don't think there would remain just one for
long. But I also don't think having multiple such
is an important problem/inconvenience.
- Re: [External] : Re: Concern about new binding., (continued)
- Re: [External] : Re: Concern about new binding., Stefan Monnier, 2021/02/03
- Re: [External] : Re: Concern about new binding., Eli Zaretskii, 2021/02/03
- Re: [External] : Re: Concern about new binding., Richard Stallman, 2021/02/05
- Re: [External] : Re: Concern about new binding., Eli Zaretskii, 2021/02/05
- Re: [External] : Re: Concern about new binding., Robert Pluim, 2021/02/05
- Re: [External] : Re: Concern about new binding., Eli Zaretskii, 2021/02/05
- RE: [External] : Re: Concern about new binding., Drew Adams, 2021/02/05
- Re: [External] : Re: Concern about new binding., Richard Stallman, 2021/02/07
- Re: [External] : Re: Concern about new binding., Robert Pluim, 2021/02/07
- Re: [External] : Re: Concern about new binding., Ergus, 2021/02/07
- RE: [External] : Re: Concern about new binding.,
Drew Adams <=
- Re: [External] : Re: Concern about new binding., Yuri Khan, 2021/02/07
- RE: [External] : Re: Concern about new binding., Drew Adams, 2021/02/05
- Re: Concern about new binding., Dmitry Gutov, 2021/02/02
- Re: Concern about new binding., Eli Zaretskii, 2021/02/02
- Re: Concern about new binding., Richard Stallman, 2021/02/05
- Re: Concern about new binding., Sean Whitton, 2021/02/05
- Re: Concern about new binding., Dmitry Gutov, 2021/02/05
- RE: [External] : Re: Concern about new binding., Drew Adams, 2021/02/05
- Re: Concern about new binding., Richard Stallman, 2021/02/07
- Re: Concern about new binding., Sean Whitton, 2021/02/07