[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: Why change the advertised bindings of Isearch commands?

From: Juri Linkov
Subject: Re: Why change the advertised bindings of Isearch commands?
Date: Sat, 28 Nov 2015 01:09:12 +0200
User-agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/25.1.50 (x86_64-pc-linux-gnu)

>> > Using M-c to exit and capitalize means removing it as a key
>> > that does something useful _in_ Isearch.
>> And evidently, the desire to remove it means we think its binding
>> outside Isearch is more useful.
> We do?  How and when did we decide that?
> What were the arguments pro and con - where can I find the
> discussion?  Did we poll the users, to get their take on this?

You can find the discussion that you missed in the mail archive.

>> > > What you are saying is that a user who spots a word to be
>> > > capitalized during Isearch needs to do at least 2 things:
>> > > exit Isearch with some key, then type M-c.
>> >
>> > Exactly as it has always been: `RET M-c'.
>> The intent of the advertised bindings is to change that at some
>> future point.
> Since when do we advertise bindings for that reason?  Can you
> point to a case where we've done that?  An advertised binding
> is typically used to ensure that the simplest or most flexible
> binding gets advertised, instead of a more complex binding that
> the tools would otherwise automatically report as "the" binding.
> At any rate, it's that intention to "change that at some future
> point" that I haven't seen discussed or decided.
> And that I disagree with.  But if it _has_ been discussed and
> decided then I have no problem supporting the decision, even
> if I disagree with it.

I remember that the consensus was to reduce the number of Isearch keys
that override their global bindings.

>> > And not "at least 2 things".  Exactly 2 things: exit & act.
>> No, it's "at least 2 things".  Because depending on how you exit
>> Isearch you may need to move point first.
> Oh come on.  Sure, you _could_ exit with a key that you bind
> to a function that does whatever nutty thing you like, and
> then have to move back where you were.  This is 100% beside
> the point (seems like arguing for the sake of arguing), since
> there are other keys (e.g. RET) that do _not_ take you all
> around Robinson's barn.
>> > So far, no reason for this change in defaults (for 3 keys)
>> > was even given.  AFAIK, it ain't broke; no need to fix it.
>> That's a different issue.  You asked why the advertised
>> bindings were changed; you now have the answer, I hope.
> No, my question is why _should_ we change these bindings?
> Your answer is that they were changed because we decided to
> change them.  Sheesh.  How about an argument to support the
> change and the intention to remove these Isearch bindings?
> How about polling the users?
>> > As I said, "different users care to have different keys
>> > exit and act immediately".
>> There are facilities to tailor the commands that exit
>> Isearch, if the user doesn't like the defaults.
> Precisely.  So why the need for this change?  That's the
> question (still unanswered).
>> > But let's hear some arguments in favor of the changes,
>> > please.
>> That's a separate discussion.
> No, that's exactly what this thread is about.  I started
> the thread, and that is what my question is: _Why_ should
> we change these bindings?  Reasons, please.

Nobody changed these bindings yet, you can still use them.

reply via email to

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