>>>>> "RW" == Robert Widhopf-Fenk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
RW> It depends on your perspective of MOVEMENT, by now it is
RW> moving to the next logical level. Seriously it is not
RW> withing the same buffer, i.e. it is changing the content.
Yes, by movement-only I mean nothing else changes than the pointer
location in the current buffer (including update of its visible part in
its visible windows, of course).
RW> But how often do you want to copy a region from the *tla*
RW> buffer.
That doesn't matter, copying was just a particular example. The basics
of the complaint was confusing behavior of the arrow keys.
RW> IMHO only when you want to invoke tla by hand, but that means
RW> xtla lacks a feature.
Oh no. I don't use xtla as a replacement for the command line
interface. I invoke most tla commands from command line, I only use
xtla when it is more convenient for me. It may be nice if xtla can
handle all tla commands, but that doesn't mean everybody wants to
operate with tla this way.
RW> Or make it optional to unbind them. We should honor the
RW> majority of users.
ATTENTION, MS WINDOWS APPROACH HERE! This approach is wrong. For
example, most users probably want to have font-lock mode enabled, but
Emacs still doesn't enable it by default. Why? Because it would hurt
the minority of users, who work with monochrome screens or strange
terminals. The first rule is don't hurt anyone, the second is be
consistent and only then convenience of majority can come.
Convenience is at the first place in environments, that can't be
customized, which is not the case of Emacs.
RW> I get the feeling this is a discussion like the thread on
RW> empty commits I started on gnu-ach.users ...
Right. I prefer tla not to perform empty commits by default too, but I
admit *adding* a new option to disable them is better than *changing*
the current behavior. With adding the new option I can achieve what I
need, without confusing anyone.
RW> <beeing-picky-here> How do you select the name of an
RW> archive? The cursor will be placed on the location line
RW> when using up/down, this is not what an typical emacs user
RW> will expect, he will expect to move one line up/down. All
RW> other modes I know do not modify cursor movement.
RW> </beeing-picky-here>
If you don't know *Completions* and dired and don't know about C-n and
C-p, you're an Emacs newbie and should learn Emacs first. ;-) Your
picky argument is not picky enough. ;-)
>> and standard things like dired or the completion buffer
>> work in a similar way.
RW> In calendar-mode it is not that way! And also not in
RW> completion buffers, rather than moving for a single char the
RW> selection moves to the next logical item!
I meant up/down. I have nothing against left/right being rebound too,
as long as their bindings are reasonable and don't change my window
configuration, buffer contents, etc. In all the examples (completions,
dired, calendar) the arrow keys hold the movement-only requirement.
RW> My mood on xtla is, that it should make everyday life with
RW> tla easier, i.e. the fewer keys I need for doing daily work
RW> and the more intuitive bindings are the better it will be.
Right! But *you* and *I* are personal preferences and this is what
`define-key' is for in your and my ~/.emacs (yes, I bind some xtla
commands to my own keys). _Fewer keys_ and _more intuitive_ is very
individual, so we must try to abandon our personal preferences and stick
to standard conventions. Everyone can bind the arrow keys to whatever
he wants, but getting rid of them is worse.
[Not that I think the whole issue of two arrow keys is so important to
spend long discussions about it. What I talk here about now is how to
design Emacs interfaces properly.]
Regards,
Milan Zamazal
--
I think any law that restricts independent use of brainpower is suspect.
-- Kent Pitman in comp.lang.lisp
