[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: Bikeshedding go! Why is <M-f4> unbound?
From: |
Drew Adams |
Subject: |
RE: Bikeshedding go! Why is <M-f4> unbound? |
Date: |
Sun, 16 Jan 2011 17:45:06 -0800 |
> > Why shouldn't it?
>
> Because it makes Emacs harder to use (especially for new users).
No harder than learning that C-d in Emacs is not the same as in shell, or that
C-s in Emacs is not the same as in most apps.
Emacs is not shell. Emacs is not Windows or Gnome. Emacs is not your average
app.
> > Should Emacs not "actively shadow" `C-c' or `C-d' or ... when
> > launched from a shell, because those keys mean somthing to
> > the shell?
>
> That is not what I meant by "shadow".
You didn't say what you meant by it. How is it different? You are arguing that
a key that has some action outside Emacs should necessarily have the same action
inside Emacs. You didn't mention shell, but I did. What's the diff?
> > Since when should Emacs simply reflect outside key bindings?
>
> The invisible Emacs. Everywhere. ;-)
Dunno what that means. Sounds more like "Windows everywhere", to me.
> > The question is about _this_ key.
>
> Which does not prevent the discussion to be more general.
But your general arguments don't help answer the question about _this_ key.
Same thing for the general argument that because a key is unbound we should give
it a default binding.
- Re: Bikeshedding go! Why is <M-f4> unbound?, (continued)
- 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, 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, 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 <=
- 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
- RE: Bikeshedding go! Why is <M-f4> unbound?, Drew Adams, 2011/01/17
- RE: Bikeshedding go! Why is <M-f4> unbound?, Drew Adams, 2011/01/17
- Re: Bikeshedding go! Why is <M-f4> unbound?, PJ Weisberg, 2011/01/14
- RE: Bikeshedding go! Why is <M-f4> unbound?, Drew Adams, 2011/01/16
- Re: Bikeshedding go! Why is <M-f4> unbound?, Stefan Monnier, 2011/01/14
- Re: Bikeshedding go! Why is <M-f4> unbound?, Óscar Fuentes, 2011/01/14
- Re: Bikeshedding go! Why is <M-f4> unbound?, Lennart Borgman, 2011/01/15