GNU bug report logs - #44611
Prefix arg for xref-goto-xref

Previous Next

Full log

View this message in rfc822 format

From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
To: Dmitry Gutov <dgutov <at> yandex.ru>
Cc: 44611 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, joaotavora <at> gmail.com, juri <at> linkov.net
Subject: bug#44611: Prefix arg for xref-goto-xref
Date: Thu, 24 Dec 2020 19:44:37 +0200

> Cc: juri <at> linkov.net, joaotavora <at> gmail.com, 44611 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
> From: Dmitry Gutov <dgutov <at> yandex.ru>
> Date: Wed, 23 Dec 2020 23:24:23 +0200
> 
> On 23.12.2020 22:30, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> 
> > If you want to continue this discussion, please drop the attitude and
> > try to see the issue from my POV.  Otherwise I see no reason to
> > continue, as I've-been-there-done-that too many times.
> 
> Could you try seeing it from my POV?
> 
> This is the first time I've heard about a rule like that regarding key 
> bindings (and not just changes in existing functions, ones that would 
> break existing configurations and third-party code). If I knew about it, 
> I wouldn't have approved that key binding in the first place, those 4 
> years ago. Because "we can't change it later" is a pretty high standard 
> for acceptance.
> 
> And now it feels like you're like changing the rules under my feet. It's 
> not a good way to make a subsystem maintainer feel.

There is no new rule.  I apologize if something I said could be
interpreted that way.

There's only one rule: not to make backward-incompatible changes
without a very good reason.  That is not limited to changes in
functions and APIs, key bindings are definitely included.  In fact, I
think incompatible changes in key bindings are even worse than changes
in code, since they might go against muscle memory, and nothing can
fix that except a long and painful process of unlearning.

I've reviewed all the NEWS since v24.1, and found only one
incompatible change in key bindings -- which started by declaring the
existing binding obsolete.  So I think we change key bindings in
incompatible ways only very rarely and carefully, and that is a Good
Thing.

Given the single precedent I found, I'm fine with declaring the
current binding of TAB obsolete and providing a replacement for it
('b'? 'q'?), so that we could replace it in some future version after
28, if that is okay with you and Juri.

Previous Next

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