Rudolf Adamkovi?0?0 <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+