From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Nick Dokos Subject: Re: org-mode + icicles, avoid key binding redefinitions? Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2014 08:16:39 -0500 Message-ID: <87k3dj6i88.fsf@gmail.com> 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> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:43118) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1W8V0o-0005aJ-Bs for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Wed, 29 Jan 2014 08:17:08 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1W8V0i-0001Mp-7Q for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Wed, 29 Jan 2014 08:17:02 -0500 Received: from plane.gmane.org ([80.91.229.3]:34072) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1W8V0i-0001Mj-19 for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Wed, 29 Jan 2014 08:16:56 -0500 Received: from list by plane.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1W8V0g-0007HJ-QV for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Wed, 29 Jan 2014 14:16:54 +0100 Received: from pool-98-110-175-184.bstnma.fios.verizon.net ([98.110.175.184]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Wed, 29 Jan 2014 14:16:54 +0100 Received: from ndokos by pool-98-110-175-184.bstnma.fios.verizon.net with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Wed, 29 Jan 2014 14:16:54 +0100 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 Florian Beck writes: > On 28.01.2014 10:08, Bastien wrote: > >> I think most of these keybindings could migrate to a C-c C- version. > > There is no need for migrating them IMO. > > The recommendation is: > > Sequences consisting of `C-c' followed by any other punctuation > character are allocated for minor modes. Using them in a major > mode is not absolutely prohibited, but if you do that, the major > mode binding may be shadowed from time to time by minor modes. > > This means important commands should have a binding reserved for major > modes. But there is absolutely no need to remove bindings which (for > many org users) have worked just fine for a long time. But it's not just a matter of satisfying rules: it's a matter of making it easy on users. 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. I find myself more in agreement with Seb than with Bastien here. The argument that reducing the number of "bad" bindings reduces the chance of conflicts does not hold water IMO: we will always have to be looking in the rear-view mirror for some minor mode that will step on us. If it's an important enough problem to solve, we should just follow the emacs guidelines in their entirety. -- Nick