[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: Bikeshedding go! Why is <M-f4> unbound?

From: Chad Brown
Subject: Re: Bikeshedding go! Why is <M-f4> unbound?
Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2011 12:29:02 -0800

Since we've admitted that we're bikeshedding...

On Jan 12, 2011, at 9:17 AM, Drew Adams wrote:
> Same argument for all of the other Windows keys:

Either this is an argument on principles, or a cost/benefit trade-off.
Mr. Dogan is clearly talking about the cost/benefit trade-off based on
usability and opportunity cost.  Mr. Adams is trying to make an
argument on principle.

The problem with Mr. Adams' argument is that it applies *at least* as
strongly against any sort of Emacs on Windows, at all.  For example:

> Emacs is a dish you learn to appreciate.  MacDo it isn't.  There is no royal 
> or
> fast-food road to fine cuisine, fine music, or anything else rich and deep.

Since you're talking about Emacs on Windows, you're *already* standing
inside the `MacDo'.  You're not talking about fine cuisine or freedom;
you're debating whether to order from the bargain menu or splurge on
the Big Mac.

>> 4. No one is saying we should bind M-f4 because it is unused. It's
>> just that it could have a very useful default binding for Windows
>> users which just happens to be unused today.
> OK, good.  But there are plenty more "very useful default bindings for Windows
> users".  You give Johnny this one by default and he thinks it's unfair that 
> you
> don't also give him that one.  And he's got a point there...

That sounds like a perfectly good time to teach Johnny the lesson that
you arbitrarily assert should only be taught one `step' earlier.  By
your argument, however, we should be teaching Johnny to avoid Windows


reply via email to

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