RE: `C-b' is backward-char, `left' is left-char - why?

> note that after Latin, Perso/Arabic script
> is the most widely used character set family on
> this planet.

No one is arguing with you.

Personally, I'm ignorant of charset/script usage.  If I had to naively guess I
would have guessed that Chinese chars were more commonly used than Latin ones.

The point is that no one is making this into a contest between scripts or
charsets - except maybe you.

> Then I try to reply and edit it in Farsi and use
> <right> and <left> keys as they make sense in my
> context. Why should that natural behavior not be
> default? Why should I, as a bidi user, have to over
> write any defaults to do what could be natural for
> both you (non-bidi-user) and I (bidi-user). 
> Are non-Latin character set users of emacs second
> class citizens in your view?

Did you actually read anything I wrote?  Get off your high, first-class horse,
please.

Who said that what you describe should not be the default behavior?  I said
clearly that it makes sense for bidi behavior to _be_ the default.  This
particular pretty-much-latin-only user _wants_ bidi behavior to be the default.

What I asked about was the possibility of opting out of the key-binding changes
I described (no, not by creating separate individual bindings).

No one said you would or should need to opt in as a bidi user.  I suggested, as
a possible addition to the implementation, having a minor mode to somehow
control this.  And I made it clear that the default for that mode (or whatever)
could be bidi ON.  If I wasn't clear enough, let me say again that the default
not only could but _should_ be bidi ON, not off.

And if the only way to allow bidi support is to change longstanding default
bindings, then so be it.  I've said that too several times now.  My question was
whether, and if so why, that is necessary.  I would like to understand it a bit.

That's the only question I raised.  There never has been any question of not
having bidi support turned on by default.  No one is trying to interfere with
your ability to open Gnus and immediately have Farsi support.  Clear enough?

> Because left-to-right got done before
> right-to-left, now <left> can not be different
> from 'C-b'?

Read what I wrote.  Stop with the knee-jerk reactions, please.

> Please explain to us why you think that Eli's
> solution is not the most reasonable? I am curious.

I never claimed that it is not the most reasonable.  I have no idea whether it
is _the most_ reasonable.  Do you?  If I had to guess, I'd guess that it
probably is the most reasonable.  I know and respect Eli's ability to design and
implement.

That does not mean that he has always thought of everything from the outset, or
that everything he does is perfect.  He would probably be the first to
acknowledge that.  More importantly, it does not mean that no one can ask the
question why.

FWIW, I asked a similar question when Yidong changed key bindings for
delete-char (or whatever it was) and when similar changes were made for cursor
movement and visual-line mode (or whatever it is).  Likewise, for the recent
mouse selection changes.  In some cases people, including our best developers,
_have_ changed bindings and other settings unnecessarily, and this was later
backtracked (no, I don't recall specifics).

There is nothing wrong with asking the question whether we really need to change
these bindings globally and why.  Wouldn't you like to know?  _Especially_ if
there is a good reason and this is the most reasonable approach, I would like to
understand it.

You are overreacting.