RE: [External] : Re: Info-mode patch

[Drew Adams]

> For me it is because I would prefer having less code if
> I don't have to. I assumed you will do something like
> that; and my personal opinion is that I would definitely
> prefer not having foo, and foo-other-window, along with
> foo-mode-map and foo-mode-other-window-map, because I
> see it as a necessary duplication in an environment
> already full with numerous commands and symbols.

1. Sincere apologies: I'm not following this thread.
Just a comment on this bit I quoted out of context.

2. There are lots of "I" occurrences there.  That's
fine, if the result is that something gets changed
in Emacs only for some "I"s who might want to opt
into that change.

3. There's an inherent trade-off in benefits, which
means that different users and different code uses
(libraries) can prefer different positions on the
trade-off spectrum.

I'm referring to this:

If there is some semi-automatic way of predefining
keys for other-window, other-frame, etc. behavior
for "base" commands, then that might mean some
simplification of some implementation code.  And it
could perhaps result in fewer commands.

But fewer commands and predefining some systematic
scheme for key-binding the window/frame variants is
also _constraining_.

Users also need to be able to easily bind different
individual commands to whatever keys they like, in
whatever keymaps they like.

And users can also prefer to have separate commands,
discoverable by name matches etc.  I might want to
find an `-other-window' or `-other-frame' version
of a command - both to read its doc and to invoke
it - specifically.      

Tying things up in a tight knot might be useful for
implementers or for some users.  But it could tie
the hands of other users and implementers of other
code.

Having multiple `foo', `foo-other-window', and/or
`foo-other-frame' really bothers some people.  Me,
I prefer that - greatly.  I don't want to have to
carve out some such behavior from an iron block,
or, in effect, have to define my own variants.
This applies to my use of commands interactively
and in code.

Again, I'm ignorant of what's being proposed.  So
maybe this is just a knee-jerk, alarmist response.
But if it rings a bell, then please make any such
changes 100% optional for users - and opt-in, not
opt-out.

Emacs is very different things for different users
and use cases.  Sweeping changes can break things
for others, without any bad intentions.