[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: 23.0.60; M-( and M-) should not be bound in ESC map
From: |
Drew Adams |
Subject: |
RE: 23.0.60; M-( and M-) should not be bound in ESC map |
Date: |
Thu, 10 Apr 2008 09:18:41 -0700 |
> > This is is not a good idea. `insert-parentheses' and
> > `move-past-close-and-reindent' should be bound only for
> > programming modes for which they actually make sense.
>
> Inserting pairs of parentheses makes sense pretty much everywhere.
>
> Yes. And error messages that a beginner doesn't totally understand
> can happen in many ways in Emacs. I think this change is too much
> just to eliminate a few cases of them.
>
> Leaving well enough alone seems best to me.
Even leaving aside the opaque error messages and the waste of useful global
keys, this makes no more sense for non-programming modes than would
`blink-matching-paren' or `show-paren-mode'. Should we add those everywhere, as
well?
And we have `insert-pair' as well. If inserting matched parens is so appropriate
for text mode and all other modes, then surely the same must be true for {}, <>,
[], "", '', and `'. The same logic says we should bind `insert-pair'. Matching
"" is at least as important as matching ().
Don't argue only to support personal habits. If your argument makes sense, then
it makes sense also for `insert-pair', `blink-matching-paren', and
`show-paren-mode'.
It's no accident that this is defined in lisp.el. It's appropriate for
programming modes with nested parens.
> People are proposing lots of changes in long-settled aspects of Emacs,
> and I think this is a bad habit. Each such proposal leads to a long
> discussion, which takes up lots of people's time. And usually it
> doesn't achieve anything.
You're opening a general discussion not specific to this bug report.
Just because a decision was made long ago does not mean that it is the right
decision now or even that it was the right decision then.
I filed a bug report. The discussion is yours. Do as you like about the report.
- Re: 23.0.60; M-( and M-) should not be bound in ESC map, (continued)
- Re: 23.0.60; M-( and M-) should not be bound in ESC map, Stephen J. Turnbull, 2008/04/12
- Re: 23.0.60; M-( and M-) should not be bound in ESC map, Paul R, 2008/04/11
- Re: 23.0.60; M-( and M-) should not be bound in ESC map, Juanma Barranquero, 2008/04/11
- Re: 23.0.60; M-( and M-) should not be bound in ESC map, Thomas Lord, 2008/04/10
- Re: 23.0.60; M-( and M-) should not be bound in ESC map, Paul R, 2008/04/10
- Re: 23.0.60; M-( and M-) should not be bound in ESC map, Stephen J. Turnbull, 2008/04/10
- Re: 23.0.60; M-( and M-) should not be bound in ESC map, Richard Stallman, 2008/04/11
- RE: 23.0.60; M-( and M-) should not be bound in ESC map,
Drew Adams <=
- Re: 23.0.60; M-( and M-) should not be bound in ESC map, Richard Stallman, 2008/04/11
- Re: 23.0.60; M-( and M-) should not be bound in ESC map, Richard Stallman, 2008/04/11
- Re: Nit-picking (was: 23.0.60; M-( and M-) should not be bound in ESC map), Eli Zaretskii, 2008/04/12
- Re: Nit-picking, Alan Mackenzie, 2008/04/12
- Re: Nit-picking, Eli Zaretskii, 2008/04/12
- Being constructive [Was: Nit-picking], Alan Mackenzie, 2008/04/12
- Re: Being constructive [Was: Nit-picking], Eli Zaretskii, 2008/04/12
- Re: Being constructive [Was: Nit-picking], Jason Rumney, 2008/04/12
- Re: Being constructive [Was: Nit-picking], Eli Zaretskii, 2008/04/12
- Re: Being constructive [Was: Nit-picking], Eli Zaretskii, 2008/04/12