[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Proposal: new default bindings for winner and windmove
From: |
Daniel Colascione |
Subject: |
Re: Proposal: new default bindings for winner and windmove |
Date: |
Sun, 23 Jun 2024 14:51:11 -0400 |
User-agent: |
K-9 Mail for Android |
On June 23, 2024 2:44:42 PM EDT, Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> wrote:
>> Date: Sun, 23 Jun 2024 10:05:13 +0000
>> Cc: Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca>,
>> Daniel Colascione <dancol@dancol.org>, emacs-devel@gnu.org
>> From: Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de>
>>
>> Hello, Stefan and Stefan.
>>
>> On Fri, Jun 21, 2024 at 15:39:09 -0500, Stefan Kangas wrote:
>> > Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> writes:
>>
>> > > A few years ago, Daniel suggested:
>> > >> Likewise, for windmove, we can bind C-x 4 {left, right, up, down} and
>> > >> DWIM
>> > >> for people automatically, enabled by default.
>> > >
>> > > AFAICT we still don't actually provide any keybindings for the windmove
>> > > commands by default. Did I miss a controversy about that, or did it
>> > > just fall through the cracks?
>>
>> > FWIW, I don't remember any controversy either, so my guess is that it
>> > just fell through the cracks.
>>
>> I would be against using C-x 4 <arrow keys> or C-x 5 <arrow-keys> for
>> windmove (or anything else) by default. Key sequences with arrow keys
>> are too few, and too precious, to use for anything not critically
>> important.
>
>I'm not sure we all are on the same page regarding what is being
>proposed. For that matter, I didn't see a detailed proposal, so I'm
>not surprised people are arguing against something that probably isn't
>on the table.
>
>For starters, windmove is not a preloaded package (neither is winner,
>but since this seems to be only about winmove, I guess winer needs a
>separate discussion). To have it available, you need to load it,
>either explicitly or by invoking one of the commands (which are
>autoloaded). I presume that the proposal for giving windmove commands
>key bindings means that the bindings will become in effect once the
>package is loaded, because nothing else makes much sense to me. Is
>that indeed what's being proposed? Does anyone have a problem with an
>optional package which, when loaded, binds some keys to its commands?
>That's a far cry from a naïve interpretation of "giving default key
>bindings to windmove". because a user who loads a package expresses
>his/her interest in using that package, and so binding some keys for
>that makes sense, and doesn't affect users who are not interested in
>the package.
Why not just set up the keybindings by default and autoload the package when
the bindings are invoked? That's the friction minimizing option. We don't have
to change any bindings installed by the current windmove code.
>
>Now, windmove already has the windmove-default-keybindings command,
>which installs key bindings for its commands. They are not "C-x 4
><ARROW>" bindings, though. If the proposal is to perform key bindings
>when the package is loaded, and use "C-x 4 <ARROW>" for that, then we
>need to make sure windmove-default-keybindings will reset the bindings
>back to their current defaults, because otherwise users of windmove
>will not be happy.
>
>Any objections to the above detailed proposal? Assuming there are no
>significant objections, would someone like to take upon themselves to
>submit a patch along those lines?
- Re: Proposal: new default bindings for winner and windmove, (continued)
- Re: Proposal: new default bindings for winner and windmove, Stefan Kangas, 2024/06/23
- Re: Proposal: new default bindings for winner and windmove, Eli Zaretskii, 2024/06/23
- RE: [External] : Re: Proposal: new default bindings for winner and windmove, Drew Adams, 2024/06/23
- Re: Proposal: new default bindings for winner and windmove, Gregor Zattler, 2024/06/23
- Re: Proposal: new default bindings for winner and windmove, Alan Mackenzie, 2024/06/23
- Re: Proposal: new default bindings for winner and windmove, Daniel Colascione, 2024/06/23
- RE: [External] : Re: Proposal: new default bindings for winner and windmove, Drew Adams, 2024/06/23
- Re: Proposal: new default bindings for winner and windmove, Eli Zaretskii, 2024/06/23
- Re: Proposal: new default bindings for winner and windmove,
Daniel Colascione <=
- Re: Proposal: new default bindings for winner and windmove, Eli Zaretskii, 2024/06/23
- Re: Proposal: new default bindings for winner and windmove, Eli Zaretskii, 2024/06/23
- Re: Proposal: new default bindings for winner and windmove, Stefan Monnier, 2024/06/23
- RE: [External] : Re: Proposal: new default bindings for winner and windmove, Drew Adams, 2024/06/23
- Re: Proposal: new default bindings for winner and windmove, Dmitry Gutov, 2024/06/23
- RE: [External] : Re: Proposal: new default bindings for winner and windmove, Drew Adams, 2024/06/23
- RE: [External] : Re: Proposal: new default bindings for winner and windmove, Drew Adams, 2024/06/23
- Re: Proposal: new default bindings for winner and windmove, Stefan Monnier, 2024/06/23
- Re: Proposal: new default bindings for winner and windmove, Dmitry Gutov, 2024/06/23
- Re: Proposal: new default bindings for winner and windmove, Stefan Kangas, 2024/06/23