Re: On the adoption of transient.el

[Philip Kaludercic]

Rudolf Adamkovič <salutis@me.com> writes:

> Philip Kaludercic <philipk@posteo.net> writes:
>
>> On the other hand something has always felt off about transient, in
>> the sense that it is breaking some expected behaviour or couldn't
>> pin-point yet, but just unconsciously stumble over. 
>
> This is exactly how I feel about the "modern" interfaces in Emacs. I
> reported a bug in Embark recently, and because I could not select and
> copy the text, I ended up re-typing the text that was right in front
> of me in Emacs. Say what? For me, Emacs is a program where I expect to
> never waste time re-typing anything. Magit has a similar feel to it,
> and I can never be sure if the program will allow me to select text in
> the diverse parts of its user interface. In my opinion, such
> uncertainty is bad for power users. I would expect this from Apple or
> Microsoft software, because their latest “UX designers” surely know
> better than anyone, but in Emacs?

I am not sure if this is something specific to modern interfaces, or
rather an overreaching when it comes to binding. After a while I managed
to "pin-point" what was irritating me, and it was the missing ability to
search (something that I seem to do so passively that i didn't even
notice it). Having C-s work is especially useful when there are a lot of
transient options. This cannot be solved by binding C-s manually,
as just because that might work for me, there is some other behaviour
someone else is expecting (eg. your example of selecting and copying
text).

What I understand transient and certain other packages do is basically
override most keys, even those it doesn't use. This is more invasive
than special-mode, that just doesn't bind self-insert-command to most
keys. What I wonder is why this is done/why it might be necessary.

> R+

-- 
        Philip Kaludercic