GNU bug report logs - #24379
[PATCH] lisp/bindings.el: Bind (yank-pop -1) to M-Y

Previous Next

Full log

View this message in rfc822 format

From: Drew Adams <drew.adams <at> oracle.com>
To: Clément Pit--Claudel <clement.pit <at> gmail.com>, Nils Berg <nilsb <at> google.com>, 24379 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: bug#24379: [PATCH] lisp/bindings.el: Bind (yank-pop -1) to M-Y
Date: Tue, 6 Sep 2016 08:58:44 -0700 (PDT)

> > Users can always override any key bindings, of course.
> > But many users are hesitant to override default bindings,
> > for whatever reasons.
...
> > Yes, and my `M-y' is only turned on in Icicle minor mode (but
> > which I am always in).  You can drop that example, if you like,
> > and just google for `emacs "M-y"' if you would like to see what
> > other users do with `M-y'.
> 
> I'm having trouble reconciling these two statements: on the one hand
> people don't like overriding existing bindings, but on the other hand
> many people override the existing M-y binding?

Maybe you're having trouble because you're trying too hard to
argue. ;-)

Many users do override default bindings.  And many do not.

In any case, the proposal was about `M-Y', which is not bound
by default.

> > My point was the _general_ one that I stated: (1) Many users
> > have their own uses of `M-y' and `C-M-y'.  And (2) adding this
> > particular binding is not helpful - it is trivial for anyone
> > to add it, if they really want it.
> 
> I don't understand. All bindings are trivial to add. That doesn't make any
> of them less helpful.

It's a trivial command, which is not hard for a user to discover
or consider binding.  And as you yourself pointed out, `M-- M-y'
does the same thing.

You're trying too hard to pick a fight, I'm afraid.

Do _you_ think `M-Y' should be bound by default to the suggested
command?  If so, please present some supporting arguments.

Previous Next

GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham, 1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd, 1994-97 Ian Jackson.