Re: position on changing defaults?

[Kim F. Storm]

Richard Stallman <address@hidden> writes:

>     > I haven't thought hard enough yet about what his suggestion does, so
>     > could you expand on its downsides?
>
>     1) It binds special commands to the shifted keys, which doesn't
>        work for minor modes which put different commands on the
>        non-shifted keys.
>
> Can you show a scenario so we can judge whether this has significant
> implications?

I can only say that over time, I've had people tell me that when they
enable some xyz-mode, the shift-region keys no longer works as expected.
The cause has always been that the mode rebound e.g. the arrow keys to
some variation of the normal cursor movement.
Adding the 'CUA property to the relevant commands fixed the problems.

However, your proposal to bind S-<whatever> to a command which runs 
the command of the underlying unshifted key would actually do better
than that, as it doesn't need to know in advance what that command is.

Actually, I think your approach is the best proposal so far!

>
>     2) C-h k S-down doesn't show the doc string of the original command.
>
> We could change C-h k to DTRT.

Yes.

>     3) It only works with transient-mark-mode off, so explicit
>        region start C-SPC has no highlighting.
>
> Can that be fixed?

I suppose so.

>
>     5) This approach is already used by s-mark and pc-selection-mode...
>
> (Which approach is "this" approach?)

Explicitly binding shift keys -- but they bind them to individual commands.

-- 
Kim F. Storm <address@hidden> http://www.cua.dk