[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Suggested experimental test
From: |
Gregory Heytings |
Subject: |
Re: Suggested experimental test |
Date: |
Tue, 23 Mar 2021 14:15:26 +0000 |
The difference is that 37 years have passed, and what was then a recent
keybinding in a program that had only a very limited user base is now a
keybinding many users have hardwired into their muscles.
Another thing that changed is that there are nowadays many more active
contributors to Emacs who have their own (and different!) views on this
subject. See below. It was easy to make such decisions when Emacs was
an RCS repository on Richard's own machine, and he was the only one who
actually made changes.
Yet another thing that's changed is that we nowadays have much fewer
free keys to work with, and many of those, while unbound globally, are
likely to be bound by some mode which is dear to someone. Part of the
reasons for the differences in opinions is that different people use
different modes and have different usage patterns, and thus keybinding
that are important to some might be unimportant (or even unknown, as
these discussions repeatedly show!) to others. How can we ever
significantly agree on removing or changing a keybinding under these
circumstances?
I see your points, but all this is rather sad, because it means that Emacs
is forever locked by what looks very much like a historical accident.
And one more thought, regarding the problem that 3rd-party packages
have: it can be argued that this is not our problem. Why should users
of Emacs that never heard of package P and will likely never use it pay
the price? why couldn't the developers of P solve the problem which is
in a way caused by P and whose solution benefits the users of P? Some
might think that shifting the price to the Emacs core is the wrong way
of dealing with the problem. The solution could be for P to use longer
key sequences (which usurps fewer keys on the top level), and if some
users of P are unhappy about that, then those users could rebind the
commands privately to any key they like. Think about it.
I'm not sure if the above ("this is not our problem") is your opinion, or
if you just present a possible viewpoint you do not necessarily share.
This has been discussed to death already, and (as you already know) IMO it
is a problem that will have to be solved by Emacs itself, sooner or later.
It does not apply to a single package P, or only to a few packages.
Just type emacs -Q, M-x list-packages RET, RET. The package you now see
('ace-window') asks you to fiddle with your init file by adding a
'global-set-key' to it. The second package in the list ('ack') does the
same. And so forth. That's not a problem for you and me, it is a problem
for newcomers, and these 'global-set-key's should be done automatically,
during the installation process. Do you know any other software that asks
you to change a configuration file manually to use an extension package?
As the author of Magit wrote when he added the "C-x g" global binding:
"Some [...] beginners will initially have a low threshold for things not
working out of the box and I don't want to (continue to) scare them off by
immediately forcing them to learn how to add key bindings and what that
even means. There's a lot of talk about making Emacs friendlier for
beginners and this is a small step in that direction." [1]
[1] https://github.com/magit/magit/pull/4237#issuecomment-723495053
- Re: Suggested experimental test, (continued)
- Re: Suggested experimental test, Gregory Heytings, 2021/03/22
- Re: Suggested experimental test, Alfred M. Szmidt, 2021/03/22
- Re: Suggested experimental test, Richard Stallman, 2021/03/23
- Re: Suggested experimental test, Jean Louis, 2021/03/22
- Re: Suggested experimental test, Robin Tarsiger, 2021/03/22
- Re: Suggested experimental test, Eli Zaretskii, 2021/03/22
- Re: Suggested experimental test, Gregory Heytings, 2021/03/22
- Re: Suggested experimental test, Eli Zaretskii, 2021/03/22
- Re: Suggested experimental test, Gregory Heytings, 2021/03/22
- Re: Suggested experimental test, Eli Zaretskii, 2021/03/23
- Re: Suggested experimental test,
Gregory Heytings <=
- Re: Suggested experimental test, Eli Zaretskii, 2021/03/23
- Re: Suggested experimental test, Gregory Heytings, 2021/03/23
- Re: Suggested experimental test, Eli Zaretskii, 2021/03/23
- Re: Suggested experimental test, Alfred M. Szmidt, 2021/03/23
- Re: Suggested experimental test, Gregory Heytings, 2021/03/23
- Re: Suggested experimental test, Alfred M. Szmidt, 2021/03/23
- Re: Suggested experimental test, Gregory Heytings, 2021/03/23
- Re: Suggested experimental test, Alfred M. Szmidt, 2021/03/23
- Re: Suggested experimental test, Gregory Heytings, 2021/03/23
- Re: Suggested experimental test, Alfred M. Szmidt, 2021/03/23