[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: Proposal: Remap interactive commands via keymaps

From: Jason Rumney
Subject: Re: Proposal: Remap interactive commands via keymaps
Date: 07 Jan 2002 22:49:20 +0000
User-agent: Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.1.50

address@hidden (Kim F. Storm) writes:

> As an real-life example, I have written cua.el which depends on both
> examining this-command in the pre-command-hook and remapping commands
> through a keymap (in a brute force manner), and it works fine as long
> as the user doesn't use M-x to run any of the overloaded commands.  If
> he does, things only go slightly wrong for some commands, utterly
> wrong for other commands, whereas practically none of them works
> correctly.

I fondly remember a time when cua-mode used to happily co-exist with
Emacs, so I could use C-@, C-w, C-y etc as I was used to, and others
that used my PC could use Shift-arrow keys, C-x, C-v etc as they were
used to. Now I have to tell others to use the menus if they are not
used to Emacs keybindings, as I am not prepared to lose the normal
Emacs functions that cua.el aggressively tries to suppress.

> No, according to you and Jason, I (and any novice user like me) have
> to explicitly know that although I enabled whizzy-mode, I need to
> enter M-x whizzy-lisp-complete-symbol to get the behaviour I want.

And according to you, if I explicitly want the behaviour of
lisp-complete-symbol, I am out of luck.  IMO, *that* is not user
friendly. whizzy-mode should modify keybindings, not replace standard
functions with its own in an intrusive way.

> Why do you think than an average user would expect yank and yank to
> behave differently whether he runs it via C-y or M-x yank ?  I simply
> cannot understand how you can say this is the correct behaviour!

I think the way that delete-selection-mode implements this is
flawed. It should rebind C-y to run some other command, so it is made
explicit that it is not the standard yank behaviour. The part of the
change you are proposing which RMS and myself agree with would make
such an implementation easier. The rest of the change you are
proposing just reinforces the confusion.

Jason Rumney

reply via email to

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