RE: button-buffer-map should inherit from special-mode-map

[Drew Adams]

> The vehemence of your objection is stunning.

What vehemence?  Another unwarranted assumption.

I just disagree with the assumptions you made and the proposal based on them.  I
am not vehement about that disagreement.  And I mean nothing personal by my
disagreement.  You explicitly solicited objections (good), and I objected.

And the first thing I said was that I am no expert on this, which is the case.
AFAICT, there is no necessary reason for such a change, and not even any good
reason for it.  And there is every reason to keep independent things uncoupled.

But I am open to being convinced otherwise.  And I'm only one voice.

> I am no longer arguing in favor of my proposal,

Why not?  Don't stop just because it met one objection.

> but out of curiosity:
> 
> 1. can you give an example of a non-self-insert buffer where 
> any of the special-mode-map bindings are not appropriate?

Don't have to.  Can you show that no such buffer can exist?

But yes - Dired.  Perhaps you recall this thread that you started?
http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/emacs-devel/2012-09/msg00015.html
See also: http://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=12311.

Some keys in s-m-map, past, current, or future, might not necessarily be
appropriate for some particular non-self-insert buffer.

In the case of that thread, the argument was over whether `z' was appropriate.
It is irrelevant to the current discussion whether it is still part of s-m-map
or whether Dired uses s-m-map.

Dired mode (not Wdired) has a non-self-insert buffer, and s-m-map is not
appropriate for it (see the second URL above).

The point is that there is no necessary dependence of non-self-insert buffers
upon s-m-map.

In this case, BTW, the doc string is no help.  The s-m-map doc string just punts
to "special mode", and that just punts nowhere (not good).

A user needs to consult (elisp) `Basic Major Modes' to find out anything of
substance about what a "special mode" is.

It is a mode whose buffer text is "produced specially by Emacs, rather than
directly from a file".  That's pretty broad.  The explanation adds that the
buffer is set by `special-mode' to read-only (which is different from
non-self-insertion, BTW).

Whether all read-only or (your question) all non-self-insertion buffers must or
should also be special could be debated.

I would argue no.  For one thing, the criterion of being "produced specially by
Emacs, rather than directly from a file" is important.  But though necessary,
neither criterion is sufficient to _require_ special mode.  You can use special
mode for such a buffer, but nothing requires you to.

> 2. can you give an example of a button-buffer-map usage in a 
> self-insert buffer?

Ditto.

Things should not be coupled unless they need to be.  Occam.

Stating this is not an expression of vehemence.

> PS. my practical rationale was that I bound a key in special-mode-map
> and was surprised that the binding was not present in *Buffer List*.

That's easily remedied, no?