From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Florian Beck Subject: Re: org-mode + icicles, avoid key binding redefinitions? Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2014 15:43:11 +0100 Message-ID: <52E9137F.40406@miszellen.de> References: <87ob33nnwi.fsf@bzg.ath.cx> <87eh3yvgyg.fsf@bzg.ath.cx> <3bc3c5a1-1c3f-4975-9dd6-3428aabb69be@default> <87ppniu06o.fsf@bzg.ath.cx> <1c11f795-ca4a-45bf-9701-7645a0609ed1@default> <87lhy6l4k4.fsf@bzg.ath.cx> <87d2jh93jb.fsf@bzg.ath.cx> <87bnywtqx4.fsf@bzg.ath.cx> <52E8E982.6070701@miszellen.de> <87k3dj6i88.fsf@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:41411) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1W8WSJ-000265-9H for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Wed, 29 Jan 2014 09:49:37 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1W8WSD-00086v-EB for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Wed, 29 Jan 2014 09:49:31 -0500 Received: from mo6-p04-ob.smtp.rzone.de ([2a01:238:20a:202:5304::10]:30088) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1W8WSC-00086f-U8 for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Wed, 29 Jan 2014 09:49:25 -0500 Received: from [10.155.236.125] ([89.204.137.125]) by smtp.strato.de (RZmta 32.22 SBL|AUTH) with ESMTPSA id h0671dq0TEhFUBz (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) for ; Wed, 29 Jan 2014 15:43:15 +0100 (CET) In-Reply-To: <87k3dj6i88.fsf@gmail.com> List-Id: "General discussions about Org-mode." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sender: emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org@gnu.org To: emacs-orgmode@gnu.org On 29.01.2014 14:16, Nick Dokos wrote: > But it's not just a matter of satisfying rules: it's a matter of making > it easy on users. That is why I don't recommend satisfying them here. > Having a "bad" binding as well as a "good" binding for > something would mean that if I load a minor mode that takes over the > "bad" binding, I would then lose it in the major mode and have to > remember the "good" binding. That's more confusing IMO than having a > single "good" binding: if we need to retrain fingers, we need to retrain > them once, not every time we load a minor mode that steps on some > binding. On the other hand, it doesn't happen "every time." The bindings had been working for years before one user reported a problem with some of them. The conflict is rare and doesn't require resolution. But it is polite to provide alternatives for bindings that might be shadowed. -- Florian Beck