Re: What does 'run' do in cperl-mode?

[Xah]

On Jul 29, 8:34 pm, Eli Zaretskii <e...@gnu.org> wrote:
> > From:Xah<xah...@gmail.com>
> > Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2008 14:16:16 -0700 (PDT)
>
> > > > • Universally understood
>
> > > So is Meta.
>
> > Huh? Are you out of your mind Eli?
>
> Not a very nice thing to say.  Are you out of arguments yet?
>
> > this can be easily verified though. Go stand on a street in downtown.
>
> Meta doesn't need to be understood by anyone downtown, just by Emacs
> users.


The argument is not about whether Meta is understood by Emac users.

One of my argument for emacs to adopt the “Alt+‹key›” notation is that
this notation is universally understood, and i explained that this is
because 95% of Windows+Linux market share, as well as their use of PC
keyboards, which has maybe 99.99% market share.

> > > > • Identical To Key's Label
>
> > > Only on some keyboards.
>
> > Huh? Are you serious or are you joking??
>
> > I have a keyboard gallery here:
> >http://xahlee.org/emacs/keyboards.html
>
> > which includes several picts of different PC keyboards.
>
> Not all keyboards in the world are PC keyboards.

The argument is not about whether all keyboards in the world are PC
keyboards.

The point here is that the notation “Alt+‹key›” used a label that
appears on PC keyboards, the Alt. And PC keyboard has some 99% of
market share.

I wrote:
• Identical To Key's Label

You retort:
Only on some keyboards.

That's not reasonable.

> > > > • Meta is Alt in practice
>
> > > Only on some keyboards.
>
> > Huh? I'm talking about Emacs's default binding for emacs running in
> > major OSes (Windows, OSX, Linux). On Windows and Linux it's Alt. On
> > Apple computers in OSX with Apple's keyboard, it's Alt in Aquamac, Cmd
> > in Carbon Emacs.
>
> Again, this is not all.  You have seen too few systems, and thus your
> conclusions are skewed.  GNU/Linux, for example, does not run only on
> Intel machines with PC keyboards.

Right, but however, emacs are run today on Windows and Linux and Mac,
and perhaps 99.99% of emacs users today uses one of these OSes.


> > > > • Keyboards don't have Meta key today
>
> > > Yes, they do, at least some of them.
>
> > Did you read what i wrote?
>
> Did you read what I wrote?

Yes.

> > > > So i consider it more as bug report now i think about it. Why? Because
> > > > emacs failed to update itself when its keyboard under lisp machines
> > > > become obsolete.
>
> > > You have your history wrong: Meta came from old Sun keyboards, where
> > > it was marked with a diamond.
>
> > Are you saying, that the Sun Microsystem's keyboard precedes Lisp
> > Machine's keyboard?
>
> No, I'm saying that Meta doesn't come from Lisp machines.

Where it came from? And how's the history of Meta is related in this
argument specifically?

> > Do you have any detail, reference at all?
>
> Yes, but no time to write it all.

Very funny.

> > > > So back to emacs.... there was CUA mode. I don't know the history of
> > > > the mode, but it is my guess that mode has been floating out there for
> > > > quite some time before it is part of emacs. I think there must be huge
> > > > resistance back then, even today, the use of it is somewhat
> > > > controversial, and geekers are shy to admit they use it because that
> > > > somehow makes them “Microsoft Kiddies”.
>
> > > You are wrong.  As long as a mode is optional, there's normally no
> > > resistance at all (assuming that it's written cleanly and according to
> > > Emacs coding style and standards).
>
> > So? what is your point?
>
> That Emacs embraces change and progress, contrary to your remarks.

What change and progress? What remark?

You need to be specific and detailed to argue convincingly. I gave
detailed answers or defense of my point of view.


> > > I hope the ratio of your lines to mine will not be so large next time,
> > > though, or else I'd need to cut my losses and stop.  I will never have
> > > enough time even to read everything you managed to dump on me in
> > > response to just 11 lines.
>
> > Let's not start slurs ok?
>
> Look who's talking.  You just accused me of being insane, not reading
> your messages and what's not.

I didn't call you insane or any insult. The closest i said was “Huh?
Are you out of your mind Eli?” followed by nice explanation on the
issue. That phrase is a way to indiacte my surprise of what you are
saying.

  Xah
∑ http://xahlee.org/

☄