Why not allow empty code blocks?

[Chris Angelico]

On Tue, Jul 26, 2016 at 3:11 AM, Rustom Mody <rustompmody at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Monday, July 25, 2016 at 10:32:45 PM UTC+5:30, Chris Angelico wrote:
>> On Tue, Jul 26, 2016 at 2:54 AM, Rustom Mody wrote:
>> > The whole world uses cua keys:
>> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_Common_User_Access
>> > [emacs] proudly sticks to what it was doing pre-cua
>>
>> Sadly, the "whole world" doesn't. Windows itself lacks quite a few of
>> the CUA keys (ask a Windows user how to move a window with the
>> keyboard, and s/he won't say "Alt-F7"), and some Windows applications
>> make this even worse (Adobe Reader egregiously so - you can't even use
>> Ctrl-Ins to copy to the clipboard, despite all the rest of Windows
>> supporting it).
>
> Ok I was speaking in-a-manner-of-speaking -- in two ways
> All means most
> Cua means the most common cua-keys — C-x C-c C-v
> of which the first two specially are so deeply embedded into emacs as prefixes
> for 100s of other functions that its hard to change without significant upheaval

Wrong - CUA's standard keys are Shift-Del, Ctrl-Ins, Shift-Ins for the
same operations. The alphabetics are not part of the CUA standard.
That said, though, most applications support both - primarily because
most GUI widgets are built to support both, and applications are
taught to respond to signals like 'paste'. This is one of those cases
where building your own is both way more work AND way less useful to
people; the same thing often happens when a program decides to be
"cute" with its UI and get rid of the title bar and regular frame,
painting its own window borders and stuff. It's a lot of work to make
that look decent, and then you end up with something that doesn't play
nicely with the rest of the system. You'd better have a really good
justification for that - and no, "it looks pretty" is NOT that
justification.

ChrisA