[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Bikeshedding go! Why is <M-f4> unbound?
From: |
Stuart Hacking |
Subject: |
Re: Bikeshedding go! Why is <M-f4> unbound? |
Date: |
Thu, 13 Jan 2011 22:53:11 +0000 |
On 13 January 2011 22:18, Drew Adams <address@hidden> wrote:
> What is the reason for Emacs to bind Alt-f4 (or M-f4) to behavior that agrees
> with what Alt-f4 does outside Emacs?
>
> Is the reason for this (a) user convenience? Or is it (b) because with some
> window mgrs we _cannot_ do otherwise (they always grab Alt-f4)?
>
> If the latter (b) is the only reason, then I don't see that as a good reason
> to
> force the same restriction on Emacs when used with other window mgrs that do
> not
> grab it. If Gnome and KDE forced Emacs to paint everything bright yellow,
> would
> we think it's appropriate to force the same thing on all other platforms?
If [Alt-F4] quits Emacs in Gnome and KDE then one would expect the
same behaviour in Windows. This is from a user experience point of
view, regardless of whether the event is caught before or after Emacs
sees it. A user unfamiliar with Emacs will go for what they know, and
when it doesn't work they'll go straight back to vim. Is that what you
want? Misery and Suffering? ;-)
> If the reason is instead for user convenience (a), so the same key does the
> same
> thing inside and outside Emacs, then why stop with this key? There are lots
> and
> lots of other window-mgr keys that we could force upon Emacs as default
> bindings
> - for similar "user convenience". Shall we do them all?
I don't think it's necessary to implement every default keybinding,
but I think [Alt-F4] has become established enough that it's
worthwhile. Will CUA mode bind things like [Alt-F4]? I have never used
it - Perhaps CUA mode should be used for all of these general purpose
shortcuts?
Personally, I think b) provides a good enough reason: To try and
maintain behavioural consistency across platforms.
- Re: Bikeshedding go! Why is <M-f4> unbound?, (continued)
- RE: Bikeshedding go! Why is <M-f4> unbound?, Drew Adams, 2011/01/13
- Re: Bikeshedding go! Why is <M-f4> unbound?, Lennart Borgman, 2011/01/13
- RE: Bikeshedding go! Why is <M-f4> unbound?, Drew Adams, 2011/01/13
- Re: Bikeshedding go! Why is <M-f4> unbound?, Óscar Fuentes, 2011/01/13
- Re: Bikeshedding go! Why is <M-f4> unbound?, Lennart Borgman, 2011/01/13
- Re: Bikeshedding go! Why is <M-f4> unbound?, Giorgos Keramidas, 2011/01/14
- Re: Bikeshedding go! Why is <M-f4> unbound?, Lennart Borgman, 2011/01/14
- Re: Bikeshedding go! Why is <M-f4> unbound?,
Stuart Hacking <=
- Re: Bikeshedding go! Why is <M-f4> unbound?, Lennart Borgman, 2011/01/13
- Re: Bikeshedding go! Why is <M-f4> unbound?, Jason Rumney, 2011/01/13
- RE: Bikeshedding go! Why is <M-f4> unbound?, Drew Adams, 2011/01/13
- Re: Bikeshedding go! Why is <M-f4> unbound?, Jason Rumney, 2011/01/14
- Re: Bikeshedding go! Why is <M-f4> unbound?, PJ Weisberg, 2011/01/14
- Re: Bikeshedding go! Why is <M-f4> unbound?, Lennart Borgman, 2011/01/14
- RE: Bikeshedding go! Why is <M-f4> unbound?, Drew Adams, 2011/01/14
- Re: Bikeshedding go! Why is <M-f4> unbound?, Lennart Borgman, 2011/01/14
- RE: Bikeshedding go! Why is <M-f4> unbound?, Drew Adams, 2011/01/14
- Re: Bikeshedding go! Why is <M-f4> unbound?, Lennart Borgman, 2011/01/14