Subject: Re: bug#8492: 23.3; Time to use a different binding for completion?

From: Reuben Thomas <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2011 22:08:40 +0100

On 21 April 2011 21:55, Lennart Borgman <[email-masked]> wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 21, 2011 at 10:14 PM, Reuben Thomas <[email-masked]> wrote:
>> On 21 April 2011 20:54, Lennart Borgman <[email-masked]> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> But the fact is that many people using Emacs depends on cua-mode and
>>> viper.
>>
>> Sure, so from time to time those bindings have to be updated when new
>> incompatibilities arise with the default Emacs bindings. How is that a
>> big deal?
>
>
> The big deal is that it is Emacs that has to accommodate its default
> bindings since the world outside is so much bigger.

How is Viper or CUA the world outside? I filed this bug because of a
clash between Emacs and the "world outside", in this case, standard
window-manager bindings. But Viper and CUA are a) part of Emacs and b)
both have (to a greater extent in Viper's case, a lesser in CUA's) a
different and fundamentally incompatible approach to key binding from
Emacs's default. I still don't see, therefore, why it's necessary, or
even how it's possible for Emacs's default keybindings to take account
of them.

To give just one example each, Viper is, following vi, modal: keys
that in Emacs are always bound to self-insert-command are bound to
editing commands in viper's command mode; in CUA, C-x is used for cut,
whereas in Emacs's default bindings it's a prefix. So it's not even
hypothetical: there are already fundamental incompatibilities. Why,
therefore, the fuss about another (potential) incompatibility?

-- 
http://rrt.sc3d.org