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

[Lennart Borgman]

On Mon, Jan 17, 2011 at 9:31 PM, Drew Adams <address@hidden> wrote:
>> > So far it seems to have been agreed that in any case
>> > (whatever is done or not done) both users and libraries
>> > should feel free to bind M-f4 in Emacs.
>>
>> This is a misunderstanding. We have not even been discussing this. No
>> one has said that users and libraries should not be able to bind M-f4.
>
> I don't know what the misunderstanding is.

That the ability to bind M-f4 is something we discussed here. No one
has argued that it should not be possible to bind M-f4, just as today.


>> >> >> No one has suggested that Alt+F4 should be hardcoded to be
>> >> >> sent to w32.
>> >> >
>> >> > Odd that you would say this just after you asked what other
>> >> > behavior could possibly exist.
>> >>
>> >> Could you please be a bit more exact in your questions?
>> >
>> > See what you wrote at the top.  You've made it very clear
>> > that you want Alt+f4 hard-coded to pass through to Windows
>> > when unbound in Emacs.
>>
>> Please do not try to win by dismissing important details, it is
>> useless and wastes our time. You are mixing to very different things
>> here.
>
> No idea what you're talking about.  What details? What two things?

It looks to me you are mixing the question whether M-f4 should be
possible to bind with what should happen when it is unbound.

I do not understand why. Maybe it is my fault, but could we just
please stop discussing such things. The only relevant thing here is
what should happen when a key like M-f4 is unbound.


> You stated both (a) "Yes, I actually do prefer #3 hard-coded" and (b) "No one
> has suggested that Alt+F4 should be hardcoded to be sent to w32."  (The latter
> was in the context of handling an _unbound_ key.)  You are someone, not no 
> one.
>
> I think (but am not sure at this point) that your position is (a): you want to
> hard-code the behavior that unbound Alt+F4/M-f4 should always be sent to w32.

Yes, I prefer (a) over the current situation, but (as I said) I have
nothing against making it a user choice. (It can't be a library choice
AFAICS since no library is involved for an unbound key, but of course
a library coiuld provide ways for the user to make this choice.)

So, thanks, we are back at the part of the question that I believe
really interests you. I have asked you what advantage you see giving a
"not bound" error message when a key is unbound.

I can't really see any. If a user want to see if a key is free they
should use for example "C-h c" which I of course think should give
relevant information. (Yes, I can see some difficulties with that
since Emacs must be taught this info.)