brahms@spp5.UUCP (Bradley S. Brahms) (07/18/86)
In article <7934@duke.duke.UUCP> crm@duke.UUCP (Charlie Martin) writes: > >If we can figure out and establish a standard key-binding, then all the >reconfigurable EMACSes (at least) can have a standard bindings set-up >which can then be fiddled with... but can we find a single binding to >set as the standard with so many EMACSes around? One, I don't think that you could get everyone to agree to a standard set of bindings. I, for one, much prefer the gosling/unipress bindings over the GNU bindings. But the bindings is only part of the story if anyone really wants to consider a standard. There also must be a standard for what the commands actually do. For instance, ^T (transpose-character) has one of two meanings, transpose two character before the point or transpose the character before and at the point. I have seen both. How about searches. Is a search incremental or not? Where does it leave you? At the beginning or at the end or the search string? If you do another search, how to you reuse the last search argument? A ^S^S ala Unipress or a ^S^M ala micro-emacs? How about ^U^V? In TOPS-20 emacs, that move the point four lines, but in most emacses it means move four screen fulls. There are a lot of other example that I could use, but I believe I have made my point. Standards are nice, but they never satisfy everyone. If you are using a true emacs that IS extensible, then let it go at that and maybe provide a macro file that will set up the GNU-standard or Gosling-standard or what have you. -- Brad Brahms usenet: {decvax,ucbvax,ihnp4}!trwrb!trwspp!brahms arpa: Brahms@usc-eclc The opinions expressed above are my own, and may not reflect those of my employer.