[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Bikeshedding go! Why is <M-f4> unbound?
From: |
Chad Brown |
Subject: |
Re: Bikeshedding go! Why is <M-f4> unbound? |
Date: |
Wed, 12 Jan 2011 12:29:02 -0800 |
Since we've admitted that we're bikeshedding...
On Jan 12, 2011, at 9:17 AM, Drew Adams wrote:
> Same argument for all of the other Windows keys:
Either this is an argument on principles, or a cost/benefit trade-off.
Mr. Dogan is clearly talking about the cost/benefit trade-off based on
usability and opportunity cost. Mr. Adams is trying to make an
argument on principle.
The problem with Mr. Adams' argument is that it applies *at least* as
strongly against any sort of Emacs on Windows, at all. For example:
> Emacs is a dish you learn to appreciate. MacDo it isn't. There is no royal
> or
> fast-food road to fine cuisine, fine music, or anything else rich and deep.
Since you're talking about Emacs on Windows, you're *already* standing
inside the `MacDo'. You're not talking about fine cuisine or freedom;
you're debating whether to order from the bargain menu or splurge on
the Big Mac.
>> 4. No one is saying we should bind M-f4 because it is unused. It's
>> just that it could have a very useful default binding for Windows
>> users which just happens to be unused today.
>
> OK, good. But there are plenty more "very useful default bindings for Windows
> users". You give Johnny this one by default and he thinks it's unfair that
> you
> don't also give him that one. And he's got a point there...
That sounds like a perfectly good time to teach Johnny the lesson that
you arbitrarily assert should only be taught one `step' earlier. By
your argument, however, we should be teaching Johnny to avoid Windows
altogether.
*Chad
- Re: Bikeshedding go! Why is <M-f4> unbound?, (continued)
- Re: Bikeshedding go! Why is <M-f4> unbound?, Óscar Fuentes, 2011/01/05
- Re: Bikeshedding go! Why is <M-f4> unbound?, Lennart Borgman, 2011/01/09
- RE: Bikeshedding go! Why is <M-f4> unbound?, Drew Adams, 2011/01/09
- Re: Bikeshedding go! Why is <M-f4> unbound?, Lennart Borgman, 2011/01/09
- RE: Bikeshedding go! Why is <M-f4> unbound?, Drew Adams, 2011/01/09
- Re: Bikeshedding go! Why is <M-f4> unbound?, Lennart Borgman, 2011/01/09
- Re: Bikeshedding go! Why is <M-f4> unbound?, Stuart Hacking, 2011/01/12
- RE: Bikeshedding go! Why is <M-f4> unbound?, Drew Adams, 2011/01/12
- Re: Bikeshedding go! Why is <M-f4> unbound?, Deniz Dogan, 2011/01/12
- RE: Bikeshedding go! Why is <M-f4> unbound?, Drew Adams, 2011/01/12
- Re: Bikeshedding go! Why is <M-f4> unbound?,
Chad Brown <=
- Re: Bikeshedding go! Why is <M-f4> unbound?, Stefan Monnier, 2011/01/12
- Re: Bikeshedding go! Why is <M-f4> unbound?, Deniz Dogan, 2011/01/12
- Re: Bikeshedding go! Why is <M-f4> unbound?, Stefan Monnier, 2011/01/12
- Re: Bikeshedding go! Why is <M-f4> unbound?, Lennart Borgman, 2011/01/12
- Re: Bikeshedding go! Why is <M-f4> unbound?, Óscar Fuentes, 2011/01/12
- Re: Bikeshedding go! Why is <M-f4> unbound?, Lennart Borgman, 2011/01/12
- Re: Bikeshedding go! Why is <M-f4> unbound?, Óscar Fuentes, 2011/01/13
- Re: Bikeshedding go! Why is <M-f4> unbound?, Stefan Monnier, 2011/01/13
- Re: Bikeshedding go! Why is <M-f4> unbound?, Óscar Fuentes, 2011/01/13
- Re: Bikeshedding go! Why is <M-f4> unbound?, Stefan Monnier, 2011/01/13