[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Standardizing more key bindings?
From: |
Richard Stallman |
Subject: |
Re: Standardizing more key bindings? |
Date: |
Sat, 03 Oct 2020 23:38:55 -0400 |
[[[ To any NSA and FBI agents reading my email: please consider ]]]
[[[ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies, ]]]
[[[ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example. ]]]
> > Thus, I think we should plan on having these bindings only
> > in the major modes that involve talking to an intepreter.
> They could also be defined by prog-mode, which is (or should be) the
> parent of all programming modes.
There are quite a few programming modes where these operations are not
useful -- compiled languages which don't have an interpreter.
Perhaps someday C will have an interpreter. (I tried to get that
done, 30 years ago.) One could argue that the interpreter keys
should be kept available for that purpose even in C mode.
On the other hand, those keys might have existing definitions in these
modes, and finding other bindings for those definitions could be a
pain. And that would be an incompatible change.
On the gripping hand, it wouldn't be hard to make the specific modes
override the new prog-mode bindings with their traditional definitions.
So I guess it is ok to put them in prog-mode.
But that presumes we use just one command to implement each
of these operations, in all the modes where they are useful.
--
Dr Richard Stallman
Chief GNUisance of the GNU Project (https://gnu.org)
Founder, Free Software Foundation (https://fsf.org)
Internet Hall-of-Famer (https://internethalloffame.org)
Re: Standardizing more key bindings?, Nikolay Kudryavtsev, 2020/10/06
Re: Standardizing more key bindings?, Richard Stallman, 2020/10/07