Re: ilisp keybindings in emacs

Hi guys,

I agree with Bob.

Also, I am having problems with Sourceforge these days, due to a move 
of all my machines behind a firewall (an a few dozen other deadlines, 
of course).  I have no problems adding Bill as a developer.   I'll try 
to fix the problem and keep you posted.

Bill: what is your SF id?

Cheers

Marco

PS.  I have also been getting some bounced email from Will Deakin.  
WIll, are you listening?


On Sunday, Apr 20, 2003, at 22:14 America/New_York, Bob Rogers wrote:

>    From: Paolo Amoroso <[email protected]>
>    Date: Sun, 20 Apr 2003 20:46:21 +0200
>
>    [thread moved to ilisp-devel]
>
>    On Sat, 19 Apr 2003 17:12:50 -0600, Bill Clementson wrote:
>
>> fsf keybindings were the best ones to introduce to newbies. (Note: I
>> received 0 replies on the ILISP mailing list, a few on c.l.l. and
>
> Oops; missed this.  I suppose that's what I get for not subscribing to
> either.
>
>> . . . Rather than just complain and hope that they will be fixed
>> at some stage, I would like to propose a set of fsf keybindings for
>> those commands that aren't covered by the current set of mappings and
>> volunteer to make the necessary changes myself . . .
>
> Making ilisp less daunting for a beginner is a worthy goal; good for 
> you
> for taking it up.  I do have a few comments; I wish there were fewer.  
> ;-}
> In order from the very general, to the very specific:
>
>    I would like to add the suggestion that, at the very least, the
> FSF-compliant bindings should become the default out of the box.  (This
> may have been your intent, but I don't believe you ever said so out
> loud.)  We should probably also start to call the other set the
> "traditional" bindings.  This ought to make getting started with ilisp
> easier.
>
>    FWIW, ilisp keybindings were chosen at the time to be familiar to
> people coming from the Lisp Machine (modulo keyboard limitations), or
> the Allegro environment (which was modelled on the LispM to some
> extent).  This is now ancient history, and Lisp Machine compatibility 
> no
> longer makes sense, not even for us dinosaurs that never learned to
> touch-type emacs on a "standard" keyboard layout.  However, I note that
> there is a ilisp-lispm-bindings function that installs the exact Zmacs
> bindings, e.g. "C-S-c" for compile-defun-lisp where "S-" is shift.  We
> might want to consider using these instead of the traditional bindings;
> there's a comment that says the LispM style bindings are not
> FSF-compliant, but that wouldn't matter if FSF bindings became the
> default.  But perhaps this is too radical; it wouldn't help the newbies
> in any case.
>
>    * I note that most of your proposed bindings are of the form "C-c
> M-something", but it seems to me that "C-c C-something" would be less
> awkward to type.  Or is this frowned on by the FSF keybinding rules?
>
>    * Alternatively, you might want to consider using simple
> three-character sequences for ild commands.  I don't use ild much,
> having gotten used to CMUCL's repertoire without it (and don't like its
> rebindings of standard keys, either).  But it seems to me that "C-c
> M-S-a" for ild-abort is much hairier to type than "M-a", especially
> since CMU requires only "a RET" at the debugger prompt.  I realize that
> ild is more for Lisp implementation independence than typing ease, but
> even so, I think an extra character could help.  I would suggest "C-c
> C-d" as a prefix for mnemonic value, except that "C-c C-d" shadows
> comint-send-eof, alas.  However, "C-c C-d a" or "C-c C-d C-a" would be
> much more reasonable to type for ild-abort.  (But select-lisp,
> fast-lisp, and slow-lisp aren't specific to debugging, so shouldn't use
> such a debugging prefix.)
>
>    * Seems to me that edit-definitions-lisp should probably stay on 
> "M-.";
> it shadows find-tag, but provides much the same functionality in a more
> Lisp-aware way.  If that isn't a good enough reason to violate the
> rules, then I'm not sure what is.
>
>    * next-definition-lisp (on "M-,") is less clear, as
> next-definition-lisp is not really equivalent to tags-loop-continue --
> in any case, "C-u M-." invokes next-definition-lisp (in CVS).
>
>    You should take this all with a grain of salt; whatever you actually
> do, I shall probably stick with (setq ilisp-*enable-dinosaur-mode-p* t)
> for a bit longer.  ;-}
>
> 					-- Bob Rogers
> 					   http://rgrjr.dyndns.org/
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------
> This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek
> Welcome to geek heaven.
> http://thinkgeek.com/sf
> _______________________________________________
> Ilisp-devel mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/ilisp-devel
>
--
Marco Antoniotti
NYU Courant Bioinformatics Group		tel. +1 - 212 - 998 3488
715 Broadway 10th FL				fax. +1 - 212 - 998 3484
New York, NY, 10003, U.S.A.



-------------------------------------------------------
This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek
Welcome to geek heaven.
http://thinkgeek.com/sf