[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[debbugs-tracker] bug#22604: closed (24.5; (elisp) `Key Binding Conventi

From: GNU bug Tracking System
Subject: [debbugs-tracker] bug#22604: closed (24.5; (elisp) `Key Binding Conventions': what about other `C-c' keys?)
Date: Tue, 09 Feb 2016 19:19:01 +0000

Your message dated Tue, 09 Feb 2016 21:18:20 +0200
with message-id <address@hidden>
and subject line Re: bug#22604: 24.5;   (elisp) `Key Binding Conventions': what 
about other `C-c' keys?
has caused the debbugs.gnu.org bug report #22604,
regarding 24.5; (elisp) `Key Binding Conventions': what about other `C-c' keys?
to be marked as done.

(If you believe you have received this mail in error, please contact

22604: http://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=22604
GNU Bug Tracking System
Contact address@hidden with problems
--- Begin Message --- Subject: 24.5; (elisp) `Key Binding Conventions': what about other `C-c' keys? Date: Mon, 8 Feb 2016 15:48:03 -0800 (PST)
This node mentions about keys following `C-c', but only `{', `}', `<',
`>', `:', `;', control chars, digits, letters, and "other punctuation".

What about keys `-', `+', `@', `#', `%', `^', `&', `*', `=', etc.?  These
are not mentioned.

I think, based on the mention of "other punctuation" coming just after
mention of the explicit list `{', `}', `<', `>', `:', `;',  that all such
chars are intended by "other punctuation".  I guess this because `<' and
`>', at least are not typically punctuation.

Could this doc please corrected to cover the cases of characters not
mentioned that are not really punctuation?  I'd propose that they should
be explicitly covered by what is said for "other punctuation": they
should be reserved for minor modes.

But regardless of what the decision is, even if it is to not put any
restriction on the use of the unmentioned chars, can we please make the
convention explicit in their regard, so there is no question, e.g.,
whether a sequence such as `C-c -' is reserved for minor modes?


In GNU Emacs 24.5.1 (i686-pc-mingw32)
 of 2015-04-11 on LEG570
Windowing system distributor `Microsoft Corp.', version 6.1.7601
Configured using:
 `configure --prefix=3D/c/usr --host=3Di686-pc-mingw32'

--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message --- Subject: Re: bug#22604: 24.5; (elisp) `Key Binding Conventions': what about other `C-c' keys? Date: Tue, 09 Feb 2016 21:18:20 +0200
> Date: Tue, 9 Feb 2016 10:33:28 -0800 (PST)
> From: Drew Adams <address@hidden>
> Cc: address@hidden, address@hidden
> > > Whether it should also cover other punctuation or other symbol chars
> > > is maybe an open question.
> > >
> > > It's really about character-inserting keys on a keyboard, not
> > > punctuation and symbol chars that are not on keys.
> > 
> > Not sure I agree.  Usurping too many characters would not be a good
> > idea, IMO.
> Usurping?  From whom/what?

>From users and from other modes.

> It's about reserving this category of keys for minor mode keymaps.

Yes, and I don't think we want or should reserve too many characters.

> > How can such a binding be useful, when Emacs runs on a non-French
> > keyboard?  Do we really want to encourage modes that can only be fully
> > functional in some specific locales?  I don't think so.
> Why treat punctuation and symbols on a US keyboard specially?
> Why should `$' be treated differently from `€'?

Because most keyboards have the former, but not the latter.

> > Any reasons not to close the bug report?
> You can close it if you like.  I would prefer that we think about
> handling the same category of char-inserting keys (punctuation and
> symbols) for other keyboards the same way we handle those for US
> keyboards.  But if that is not to be then it is not to be.

We can think with the bug closed, and we can reopen later (or make a
change without reopening).

--- End Message ---

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]