[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Bikeshedding go! Why is <M-f4> unbound?
From: |
Lennart Borgman |
Subject: |
Re: Bikeshedding go! Why is <M-f4> unbound? |
Date: |
Fri, 14 Jan 2011 21:27:38 +0100 |
On Fri, Jan 14, 2011 at 6:58 PM, Drew Adams <address@hidden> wrote:
>> I don't think the argument that "if we bind <M-f4> to this function
>> now, we won't be able to bind it to something else later" holds up
>> for this key combination.
>
> AFAICT no one has argued that. Certainly not I.
>
> I mainly _asked_ what our reasons are for binding it. (And the reasons given
> have varied, BTW.) AFAICT, we have not concluded _why_ we should do it, even
> if
> some people are definitely in favor of doing it.
>
> If we do this kind of thing it is good to know why, especially because we will
> no doubt be having this same conversation again someday about some other
> outside
> hotkey.
>
>
> To the extent that I do argue against Emacs binding this key by default
> (actually, I don't feel super strongly about it, it's just that the reasons in
> favor have so far been so weak), my arguments are these:
>
> 1. Alt-f4 (or `M-f4') is an _easily repeatable chord_. Unlike `C-x 5 0' or
> `C-x
> C-c', you can repeat it by just holding it down. Such keys are valuable - for
> use in Emacs. By users. By Emacs libraries. Finding such keys that are not
> already bound or reserved or in some other way "taken" is getting harder.
>
> I do not like for Emacs to gratuitously "waste" keys. And this particular
> waste
> seems pretty darn gratuitous to me, which is why I asked for the reasons
> behind
> it.
>
>
> 2. Giving a default binding to this key will (yes, it seems to) discourage
> other
> uses of it in Emacs. Over time, default bindings sometimes become sacrosanct.
As I have already said (but you might have missed) Emacs does bind
Alt+F4 by default now (but does not use it). Aren't you from that
perspective actually kind of defending that binding?
- Re: Bikeshedding go! Why is <M-f4> unbound?, (continued)
- Re: Bikeshedding go! Why is <M-f4> unbound?, Giorgos Keramidas, 2011/01/14
- Re: Bikeshedding go! Why is <M-f4> unbound?, Lennart Borgman, 2011/01/14
- Re: Bikeshedding go! Why is <M-f4> unbound?, Stuart Hacking, 2011/01/13
- Re: Bikeshedding go! Why is <M-f4> unbound?, Lennart Borgman, 2011/01/13
- Re: Bikeshedding go! Why is <M-f4> unbound?, Jason Rumney, 2011/01/13
- RE: Bikeshedding go! Why is <M-f4> unbound?, Drew Adams, 2011/01/13
- Re: Bikeshedding go! Why is <M-f4> unbound?, Jason Rumney, 2011/01/14
- Re: Bikeshedding go! Why is <M-f4> unbound?, PJ Weisberg, 2011/01/14
- Re: Bikeshedding go! Why is <M-f4> unbound?, Lennart Borgman, 2011/01/14
- RE: Bikeshedding go! Why is <M-f4> unbound?, Drew Adams, 2011/01/14
- Re: Bikeshedding go! Why is <M-f4> unbound?,
Lennart Borgman <=
- RE: Bikeshedding go! Why is <M-f4> unbound?, Drew Adams, 2011/01/14
- Re: Bikeshedding go! Why is <M-f4> unbound?, Lennart Borgman, 2011/01/14
- RE: Bikeshedding go! Why is <M-f4> unbound?, Drew Adams, 2011/01/16
- Re: Bikeshedding go! Why is <M-f4> unbound?, Lennart Borgman, 2011/01/16
- Re: Bikeshedding go! Why is <M-f4> unbound?, Philipp Haselwarter, 2011/01/16
- RE: Bikeshedding go! Why is <M-f4> unbound?, Drew Adams, 2011/01/16
- RE: Bikeshedding go! Why is <M-f4> unbound?, Drew Adams, 2011/01/16
- Re: Bikeshedding go! Why is <M-f4> unbound?, Lennart Borgman, 2011/01/17
- Re: Bikeshedding go! Why is <M-f4> unbound?, Stephen J. Turnbull, 2011/01/17
- Re: Bikeshedding go! Why is <M-f4> unbound?, Lennart Borgman, 2011/01/17