On Feb 26, 1:59 am, Tassilo Horn <tass...@member.fsf.org> wrote: > Xah Lee <xah...@gmail.com> writes: > > Hi Xah, > > > is the suggestion of using modern standard shortcut set of X C V for > > Cut, Copy, Paste, of which Linux uses, means it is turning emacs to a > > fancy Notepad clone? > > The functionality stays the same, but IMO it would confuse most users. > Killing is not cutting, yanking is not pasting. The whole concepts > (kill-ring vs. simple copy&paste) are much different.
emacs's killing/yaning/kill-ring is basically the same idea as copy/ cut/paste-board. Basically, emacs's pasteboard is just a extended version, such that it keeps a record of previous copied contents. To users, effectively, this means you can do paste-previous. That's all there is to it. So, it's brainless to make emacs intuitive to people and adopt modern UI standards. Basically, copy, cut, paste, is all the same, except in emacs you have also paste previous. > > Is fixing emacs's confusing undo and no redo, that is periodically > > bitched by programer in blogs, considered making emacs into a Notepad > > clone? > > It's much more advanced than the usual sequential undo, but I admit that > it can get confusing sometimes. So instead of dropping it I'd prefer to > think about a better UI for it. > > > Is the suggestion for a statistics based ergonomic keybinding design > > that are more faster to execute, easier on the fingers, and easier to > > remember, mean it is turning emacs to a fancy notepad clone? > > Users use different commands and your bindings may be better for you on > your querty keyboard, but I'm sure they're not on my German Dvorak Type > II keyboard. If your are on a special keyboard, you are on your own. The ergonomic keybinding • Ergoemacs Keybindings http://xahlee.org/emacs/ergonomic_emacs_keybinding.html plays well with modern UI in Windows, Mac, Linux. It improves emacs keybinding, but also support standard shortcut sets. In no way, it loses any emacs advantage, while, it makes emacs compatible and intuitive for vast majority of computer users, and improve efficiency for those heavy touch typists and programers who are into the concept of not leaving hands off the keyboard. > > is the suggestion of getting rid of *scratch* buffer, and introduce a > > command “New” with shortcut Ctrl+n, that creates new buffer anytime > > anywhere, which lets user create multiple scratch buffers defaulting > > to any mode and compatible for the rest of Linux's shortcuts, means it > > is a fancy Microsoft Notepad? > > Such a easy key like C-n is much too valuable for such a rarely used > command. C-x b foobar RET is ok, isn't it? This issues is discussed before in some hundred or 2 hundred thread in 2008. the proposal in detail is here: • Suggestions on Emacs's Scratch Buffer http://xahlee.org/emacs/modernization_scratch_buffer.html In no way it sacrifices emacs operational efficiency. The proposal is careful thought out, so that in not only doesn't sacrifice emacs operational efficient in any possible way, but improve it, yet meanwhile makes it compatible with modern UI and intuitive to the masses. As for the Ctrl+n for New, it must be used in conjunction with the ergonomic keybinding set mentioned above. In the end, users can intuitive press Ctrl+n for creating a new file, one or multiple of it, can be used as elisp *scratch*, and can be set to default to any major mode, and can be saved by simply pressing Ctrl +s, and it will ask if user wants to save instead of like emacs *scratch* it risk losing data. > > is the suggestion of changing notation from C- and M- to Ctrl+ and Alt > > +, such that it reflects the lable on the keyboard, and Richard > > Stallman agrees may be a good idea, means it's Notepad? > > Nope, but I'm not sure if it's possible for emacs to get the right key. > Here, M is Alt, but Ctrl is indeed on the CapsLock key... > > And it makes key sequences much longer to write with little or no > benefit. What the fuck r u talking about?? Really, what the fuck are you talking about? Give concrete, specific point please. As for the CapsLock for Control, it's a industry myth. For detail, see: • Why You Should Not Swap Caps Lock With Control http://xahlee.org/emacs/swap_CapsLock_Ctrl.html > > is the suggestion of supporting html mail, and interface to gmail out > > of the box, means it's becoming Microsoft Notepad? > > Definitively not. AFAIK Gnus can handle gmail accounts quite well. Quite well my ass. Thank you for your feedback. I think it would be nice if you do some research on each particular issue. I can't spend my time to write detailed things to teach every poster. And i often have to repeat multiple times of the same issue. For example of a research, suppose you find my claim about Ctrl and Caps Lock switch incredible. Then, you can do research on this subject. Spending 1 hour on it, or days. You can go to library to research ergonomics, or ask professors, or try to hire experts for opinion, or set out experiments and test out hypothesis etc. For example, you can write a program to statistically log your keystroke, timing, etc. You can also set out key sequences set, A, and B, and type them for one hour each, to see which is causing your hand pain, etc. The above is just beginner suggestions, on one particular example of contention. On each and every issue, you can start a research. Btw, you are prob a typical tech geekers, where you don't understand nothing about research or social sciences. One short concrete advice i can give about your situation when researching, is not based on your views on slashdot, or the tech geeking blogs, or “my emacs buddies did this or that” type of thinking. Another concrete advices is that whatever you did for the research, must cost you. If it came easily without much cost, chances are, it's bullshit in your head. What dose cost mean? Ok, it means your time, for example. Are you, willing, to put aside say 10 hours of your time, on a issue mentioned here? Alternatively, say, are you willing, to spend $100 USD for research on particular issue we are debating here? For example, the money can be used to pay professional services that does research for you. It's probably peanuts and most such research services won't take. But it's a start on thinking. You can spend it on someone who are known expert for example. As a quick example, say you disbelieve one of my claim about ergonomics, then you can spend the $100 USD to say ask some known ergonomics expert to dinner or buy him beer, and ask about his opinion. I typed the above as fast as i can, just to give you some ideas. There are too many issues, aspects, technical, social, concrete, philosophical, that i can cover, and have written a lot in the past years. I can't repeat them all here, and frankly i discussed only a small part. But i hope you have some basic ideas about the issue. Love & knowledge, Xah ∑ http://xahlee.org/ ☄ -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
