>>>>> "RW" == Robert Widhopf-Fenk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
RW> Your approach is, the majority should do more work and save
RW> the few others from doing it ... outch THIS APPROACH IS
RW> WRONG. Binding can be set an unset, it it no one-way
RW> street.
The "majority approach" used to be preferred by XEmacs (and other
editors). No need to introduce it to Emacs, which is minority friendly.
RW> Also your example is lame, if done right it will detect the
RW> monochrome display and will not enable font-lock.
How can this be detected on Linux console? What if something is wrong
and you want to run your favorite editor to fix it? Why it is not
enabled by default then -- most users don't want to use font-lock?
RW> This would be like making -nw an default option for Emacs,
No, running Emacs X interface within X is very unlikely (despite it can
in extreme cases) to cause problems or confusion.
RW> My point was: How do you select only a part of a item in the
RW> *Completion* buffer by using the cursor keys? Maybe I just
RW> want to add a prefix/suffix/part of an item to the kill
RW> ring. It is not possible, since evil people have broken the
RW> standard ...
Answered in my previous mails.
RW> My window config is not changing as I have (setq
RW> tla-switch-to-buffer-mode 'single-window)
Which is not default.
RW> Calendar mode will change the buffer content,
You're right, I'm sorry. But it looks like scrolling, so I can live
with it :-).
RW> Also in the *tla-archives* buffer up/down will move two
RW> lines, is this not strange for you? Selecting the archive
RW> name is king of hard as you are forced to use other movement
RW> keys. This also holds for other tla buffers.
Answered in my previous mails.
RW> Well my point is, what standard? In editing modes the
RW> cursor keys all do the same thing, but NOT in other modes.
RW> Rather than doing dumb cursor movement there they do LOGICAL
RW> moves. When I added those bindings I had this logical move
RW> in mind.
That's right except it does more than logical moves and even doesn't
output a message telling me how to restore the previous state.
RW> 1) there is nothing like THE consistent behavior or an Emacs
RW> interface design guide.
But I think there's something like common sense here.
RW> 2) reducing the overall work of an community it better than
RW> trying not to offend a few.
OK, our opinions differ here.
RW> 3) we could find more arguments for both of our positions and
RW> there is no right one. Well, sure personally we both think the
RW> other one is wrong ;c)
Maybe we could find common position, it's often worth to attempt.
(Our common position is, I believe, that rebinding the arrow keys is not
a bad idea, we only perhaps haven't found common position yet on how
much should they do *by default*.)
RW> So, let's focus on more important things now.
Consistency of xtla interface is important to me, since otherwise I have
to fork from xtla, which is a lot of (in some sense useless) work.
Consistency of Emacs interfaces generally is even more important to me,
since otherwise I had to switch to a different editor, which is huge
work.
Regards,
Milan Zamazal
--
http://www.zamazal.org
