RE: `C-b' is backward-char, `left' is left-char - why?

[Drew Adams]

> > Why not make bidi optional?  Why not have a minor mode for the bidi
> > stuff, and only bind keys such as `left' to commands that 
> > are specific to bidi when that mode is turned on?
> 
> You mean that the `left' binding to `left-char' should be placed in
> a minor mode keymap activated by the variable bidi-display-reordering?

I don't have a ready-made implementation, obviously.  Yes, I mentioned
minor-mode key bindings as one possibility.  But I also mentioned a minor mode
setting/restoring bindings in other keymaps.

The latter is problematic and not simple; it could be hairy and is not
necessarily clean.  And the former has obvious limitations, as you mention
below.

I was trying to suggest that it would be good to somehow be able to apply such a
set of bidi bindings only optionally (by default, but with the possibility of
opting out).

I did not try to provide a solution.  My point was to _ask_ whether changing
these bindings globally is necessary.  I simply asked whether there wasn't some
way to avoid changing them.  There's been a lot of heat, but not much in the way
of an explanation.  It's been said that they are needed for bidi.  It hasn't
been explained why they need to be in effect if bidi is disabled.

How the implementation would move between having these new bindings in place for
bidi and not making them when bidi is disabled is not something I would try to
answer.  I asked whether it was possible.

> I can see why you'd want that,

Well, good.  Is there a way to get it?  That's the question.

> - minor mode bindings have higher precedence than major mode 
>   bindings, so suddenly major mode bindings of `left' would
>   become ineffective.

Yes, that's a general problem with minor modes.  They are the closest thing I
can think of for what would be needed here to allow bidi to optionally affect
such bindings.  I recognize full well their limitations.