|
From: | Kaushal |
Subject: | Re: C-x 8 shorthands for ≤ and ≥ |
Date: | Tue, 12 May 2015 11:58:46 -0400 |
In reply to Drew's email that seems to have started by mistake in a new thread> And I'm wondering why we need to provide such "shortcuts". It is
> *trivial* for anyone to bind keys to insert any chars one uses often.
> I don't see how we're doing anyone any favors by this.
>
> What's so special about any particular set of Unicode chars that we
> should bother to offer a predefined set of bindings for them (even if
> turning on that set is optional)? Now we're even down to looking to
> bind ≫ or »? How silly is that? (Well, I'm sure those chars are
> very useful for some people - but those who need 'em can bind 'em.)
>
> Where's the beef?As I mentioned in the first email, I can easily bind those to what I want.I was motivated to email about this because I found the binding "_<" for ≤ a bit unnatural. In all the coding languages I used, ≤ was always represented as "<=" and so thought that that binding would make more sense.Then I realized that "<" was already taken for the « and so we could not have the "<=" binding.And then the thread evolved as you see.As Stefan mentioned, the "<" binding was added at the time when probably the other unicode characters were probably not popular.So this was just a little gesture to "upgrade" the out-of-box bindings for "C-x 8" since we are already setting a few default bindings for some unicode characters.I am fine with this discussion ending here and I will go back to using a little hydra with a bunch of unicode chars I use frequently.
--
Kaushal ModiOn Mon, May 11, 2015 at 6:13 PM, Stefan Monnier <address@hidden> wrote:> I disagree. I use « and » from time to time, and I /never/ wanted to
> use ≪ or ≫.
FWIW I'm in the same situation.
Stefan
[Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread] |