[Top][All Lists]

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

RE: C-x SPC : rectangle-mark-mode or gud-break?

From: Stephen J. Turnbull
Subject: RE: C-x SPC : rectangle-mark-mode or gud-break?
Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2013 14:07:01 +0900

Drew Adams writes:

 > > History matters, Drew.
 > Pretty vague platitude.  So does chocolate matter.

Sure, and Richard wants a pony^Wwordprocessor.  It's only vague here
to you; I'm sure everybody else reading my post understood exactly
what I meant.

 > Emacs Dev can decide whatever it wants for `C-x SPC'.

Of course it can; what I (and M. Duggan) are suggesting is that it
*should* be reverted to unbound by core (or the rectangle library,
which also has a perfectly good prefix of C-x r and no history of
binding anything to C-x SPC), leaving it free for gud to bind (at
gud's risk if another good candidate for binding to C-x SPC should
appear in the future).

 > > AFAIK you don't prefer the current binding to
 > > a rectangle function, but want the key sequence left for future use.
 > Too narrow.
 > What I suggested was to unbind it by default, for now.

Well, in fact that's the way it is now (as of 24.3.1).  It's just that
gud installs its binding in the global keymap when loaded.

 > That's all.  There's no reason we cannot reconsider this
 > decades-old default global key binding.

We *are* reconsidering it.  I'm just expressing my opinion that when
there's a 20-year history behind a particular binding, there's good
reason to decide to leave it in place.  And that I see no similar
reason in favor of blocking it by using it for a rectangle command.

reply via email to

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