Re: `C-b' is backward-char, `left' is left-char - why?

[Mohsen BANAN]

Drew,

You are not paying attention to what is being said. 

I am not going to argue with you or repeat myself.

Everything I said directly related to default
behavior of <left> and <right> assuming bidi is
default. 

The problem is two fold. Your understanding of
bidi and your ability to listen.

You have been making a fuss over nothing in more
than one way.

...محسن
...Mohsen


>>>>> On Fri, 27 May 2011 18:53:26 -0700, "Drew Adams" <address@hidden> said:

  >> note that after Latin, Perso/Arabic script
  >> is the most widely used character set family on
  >> this planet.

  Drew> No one is arguing with you.

  Drew> Personally, I'm ignorant of charset/script usage.  If I had to naively 
guess I
  Drew> would have guessed that Chinese chars were more commonly used than 
Latin ones.

Chinese is not chars based.

  Drew> The point is that no one is making this into a contest between scripts 
or
  Drew> charsets - except maybe you.

  >> Then I try to reply and edit it in Farsi and use
  >> <right> and <left> keys as they make sense in my
  >> context. Why should that natural behavior not be
  >> default? Why should I, as a bidi user, have to over
  >> write any defaults to do what could be natural for
  >> both you (non-bidi-user) and I (bidi-user). 
  >> Are non-Latin character set users of emacs second
  >> class citizens in your view?

  Drew> Did you actually read anything I wrote?  Get off your high, first-class 
horse,
  Drew> please.

  Drew> Who said that what you describe should not be the default behavior?  I 
said
  Drew> clearly that it makes sense for bidi behavior to _be_ the default.  This
  Drew> particular pretty-much-latin-only user _wants_ bidi behavior to be the 
default.

  Drew> What I asked about was the possibility of opting out of the key-binding 
changes
  Drew> I described (no, not by creating separate individual bindings).

  Drew> No one said you would or should need to opt in as a bidi user.  I 
suggested, as
  Drew> a possible addition to the implementation, having a minor mode to 
somehow
  Drew> control this.  And I made it clear that the default for that mode (or 
whatever)
  Drew> could be bidi ON.  If I wasn't clear enough, let me say again that the 
default
  Drew> not only could but _should_ be bidi ON, not off.

  Drew> And if the only way to allow bidi support is to change longstanding 
default
  Drew> bindings, then so be it.  I've said that too several times now.  My 
question was
  Drew> whether, and if so why, that is necessary.  I would like to understand 
it a bit.

  Drew> That's the only question I raised.  There never has been any question 
of not
  Drew> having bidi support turned on by default.  No one is trying to 
interfere with
  Drew> your ability to open Gnus and immediately have Farsi support.  Clear 
enough?

  >> Because left-to-right got done before
  >> right-to-left, now <left> can not be different
  >> from 'C-b'?

  Drew> Read what I wrote.  Stop with the knee-jerk reactions, please.

  >> Please explain to us why you think that Eli's
  >> solution is not the most reasonable? I am curious.

  Drew> I never claimed that it is not the most reasonable.  I have no idea 
whether it
  Drew> is _the most_ reasonable.  Do you?  If I had to guess, I'd guess that it
  Drew> probably is the most reasonable.  I know and respect Eli's ability to 
design and
  Drew> implement.

  Drew> That does not mean that he has always thought of everything from the 
outset, or
  Drew> that everything he does is perfect.  He would probably be the first to
  Drew> acknowledge that.  More importantly, it does not mean that no one can 
ask the
  Drew> question why.

  Drew> FWIW, I asked a similar question when Yidong changed key bindings for
  Drew> delete-char (or whatever it was) and when similar changes were made for 
cursor
  Drew> movement and visual-line mode (or whatever it is).  Likewise, for the 
recent
  Drew> mouse selection changes.  In some cases people, including our best 
developers,
  Drew> _have_ changed bindings and other settings unnecessarily, and this was 
later
  Drew> backtracked (no, I don't recall specifics).

  Drew> There is nothing wrong with asking the question whether we really need 
to change
  Drew> these bindings globally and why.  Wouldn't you like to know?  
_Especially_ if
  Drew> there is a good reason and this is the most reasonable approach, I 
would like to
  Drew> understand it.

  Drew> You are overreacting.