thoughts on interaction of key bindings and input methods (was Re: wish: right alt/meta to switch keyboard layout while pressed)

Aidan Kehoe wrote: OK, I'll also CC it back to GNU Emacs' list for the same reason. Sure. I can't say which would be the most natural thing to hit, because few apps but Emacs use such extravagant shortcuts. Maybe I'd say like this: if an application uses _localized shortucts_ (i.e. is filled with things like `Ctrl-Щ' and stuff), I'd go for `Alt-Shift-8', else `Alt-ж' i.e. `Alt-;' on English layout. Since Emacs is not localized in this way (and cannot and mustn't be, I think), typing `M-ж' for `M-;' is probably more natural. Localized key bindings are impossible for Emacs, since you cannot type say ']' with the Russian keyboard layout. So, the only option is to type `C-]' as it is on English layout, which implies you must type all the other shortcuts like this, for UI consistency and to avoid clashes. I cannot answer `yes' to an `or' question ;) Based on what I stated above, I'd say that all shortcuts, in Emacs at least, must be invariant to physical keys, not to logical characters the keys produce with the current input method/layout. This is probably also better ergonomically, since for power users (like me ;) key binding combos slip into subconsciousness. I don't think my internal autopilot performs a ``hold the Meta key and type the semicolon, wherever it is'' command, rather a ``press the key here with the left thumb, and another one there with the third right finger.'' If it indeed works like that, shortcuts staying at the same physical keys require less effort to memorize/ push into subconsciousness. Accepting `;ыскфеср;' as `*scratch*' won't work as a generic solution for the reason you mentioned. It may be an optional heuristic, turned off by default. There were some interesting programs for Windows that would automagically switch the layout for you once you had started typing gibberish in the current layout. I.e. if you typed ``Heccrbq'', it would consider it too weird an English word, backspace it and retype in Russian layout as ``Русский''. Likewise, it would automagically switch to English layout if you typed ``щчньщкщт'' instead of ``oxymoron''. However, such heuristical things often work incorrectly with artificial languages, like programming ones, and must never be forced on the user. The only plausible generic solution I can think of is to track the layout for each buffer separately. This may be very difficult to impossible to implement with external layout switching. And that's precisely the reason why I prefer to use Emacs' own input methods switched by `C-\'. This means that I have to use different layout switching methods in Emacs and elsewhere, but the advantages are more important for me. Another, less important, superiority of Emacs input methods for me is the ability to easily activate an otherwise not used input method. I occasionally activate Greek and German input methods. With Emacs it is relatively simple, while with say KDE it would mean that I'd have to either constantly scroll through 4 layouts or go into the Conrol Center each time I need one of the rarely used layouts. Paul