Re: What does 'run' do in cperl-mode?

[Eli Zaretskii]

> From: Xah <xahlee@gmail.com>
> Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2008 14:16:16 -0700 (PDT)
> 
> > > • Universally understood
> >
> > So is Meta.
> 
> Huh? Are you out of your mind Eli?

Not a very nice thing to say.  Are you out of arguments yet?

> this can be easily verified though. Go stand on a street in downtown.

Meta doesn't need to be understood by anyone downtown, just by Emacs
users.

> > > • Identical To Key's Label
> >
> > Only on some keyboards.
> 
> Huh? Are you serious or are you joking??
> 
> I have a keyboard gallery here:
> http://xahlee.org/emacs/keyboards.html
> 
> which includes several picts of different PC keyboards.

Not all keyboards in the world are PC keyboards.

> > > • Meta is Alt in practice
> >
> > Only on some keyboards.
> 
> Huh? I'm talking about Emacs's default binding for emacs running in
> major OSes (Windows, OSX, Linux). On Windows and Linux it's Alt. On
> Apple computers in OSX with Apple's keyboard, it's Alt in Aquamac, Cmd
> in Carbon Emacs.

Again, this is not all.  You have seen too few systems, and thus your
conclusions are skewed.  GNU/Linux, for example, does not run only on
Intel machines with PC keyboards.

> > > • Keyboards don't have Meta key today
> >
> > Yes, they do, at least some of them.
> 
> Did you read what i wrote?

Did you read what I wrote?

> > > So i consider it more as bug report now i think about it. Why? Because
> > > emacs failed to update itself when its keyboard under lisp machines
> > > become obsolete.
> >
> > You have your history wrong: Meta came from old Sun keyboards, where
> > it was marked with a diamond.
> 
> 
> Are you saying, that the Sun Microsystem's keyboard precedes Lisp
> Machine's keyboard?

No, I'm saying that Meta doesn't come from Lisp machines.

> Do you have any detail, reference at all?

Yes, but no time to write it all.

> > > So back to emacs.... there was CUA mode. I don't know the history of
> > > the mode, but it is my guess that mode has been floating out there for
> > > quite some time before it is part of emacs. I think there must be huge
> > > resistance back then, even today, the use of it is somewhat
> > > controversial, and geekers are shy to admit they use it because that
> > > somehow makes them “Microsoft Kiddies”.
> >
> > You are wrong.  As long as a mode is optional, there's normally no
> > resistance at all (assuming that it's written cleanly and according to
> > Emacs coding style and standards).
> 
> So? what is your point?

That Emacs embraces change and progress, contrary to your remarks.

> > I hope the ratio of your lines to mine will not be so large next time,
> > though, or else I'd need to cut my losses and stop.  I will never have
> > enough time even to read everything you managed to dump on me in
> > response to just 11 lines.
> 
> Let's not start slurs ok?

Look who's talking.  You just accused me of being insane, not reading
your messages and what's not.