Re: PROPOSAL: Repurpose one key (why only one?) and reserve it for third-party packages

[Philip Kaludercic]

Jean Louis <bugs@gnu.support> writes:

> * Gregory Heytings <gregory@heytings.org> [2021-02-14 00:19]:
>> > > > Sorry for protracting the conversation, I just think the
>> > > > interpretation of the guideline is important.
>> > > 
>> > > Not for the proposal itself.
>> > 
>> > Well yes, because if packages may bind to C-c *with* the consent of
>> > users, the need for a special package map decreases.
>> > 
>> 
>> As I said, IMO it does not, it can't work as a long-term solution, 26
>> letters is simply not enough.  Anyway, neither I nor you can decide what the
>> "correct" understanding of that guideline is, so I suggest we stop arguing.
>> A proposal has been made, we'll see what the maintainers do with it.
>
> C-c a - can be bound to single command
>
> C-c a - can become prefix key for other 54 various commands like 26
>         letters plus upper case letters = 52 plus 10 numbers = 62 + 32
>         symbols = 94 various commands
> C-c a a - can become as well prefix key for 94 various commands
> C-c b a - can become as well prefix key for 94 various commands
> etc.
>
> It can work as long term solution.

This would only work, if you insist that packages only bind C-c LETTER
to a map, and not another package, which also only works if the user
doesn't decide to bind C-c LETTER to a command. So I get that there
might not be that many commands, but I'd dare to claim that 52 keys are
a fair number. This is not a matter of computational power or memory,
the needs are not increasing exponentially over time. Keyboards have
stayed more or less the same for over 70 years now and mouses have
rarely more than three buttons. Even with Emacs, I am fairly sure that
if you'd follow what commands and keys most people use, there would be
an uneven/exponential distribution for everyone (while
self-insert-command, yank, switch-to-buffer, ... are more common,
open-line, back-to-indentation, forward/backward-page might differ a lot
more and other commands that are bound by default are probably
completely ignored), that might even be unique (e.g. I've recently
noticed I unconsciously use find-alternate-file as a kind of
revert-buffer).

Maybe it is just me, but it would surprise me if people would keep 52
distinct commands in memory, which all have to be bound globally and are
easy to type. Not insisting on this though.

-- 
        Philip K.

signature.asc
Description: PGP signature