|
From: | Dmitry Gutov |
Subject: | bug#49980: 28.0.50; [PATCH] Should we have project-save-buffers? |
Date: | Fri, 13 Aug 2021 05:06:17 +0300 |
User-agent: | Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.11.0 |
On 12.08.2021 10:55, Juri Linkov wrote:
It would be nice to have a keybinding for this useful command, as there is 'C-x s', but 'C-x p s' is bound to 'project-shell'. Maybe then to bind it to 'C-x p S'?If we do end up adding this command, we could move project-shell to 'C-x p E', for example, so that we don't spread shell-related commands over different letters.Or to a new prefix map, e.g. 'C-x p x s' with mnemonics "eXecute Shell".
That would also displace project-execute-extended-command, which seems gratuitous. And if we were putting different commands together to save keymap space, 'project-compile' seems closer in purpose to 'project-shell' than 'project-execute-extended-command'.
Anyway, 'e' as a mnemonic for 'Eshell' or 'shEll' seems good enough for me.
But see my question in the other email. Is there any reason not to just use 'save-some-buffers' (C-x s)?In bug#46374 we are adding a new option 'project-root' to 'save-some-buffers-default-predicate' that will allow 'C-x s' to save only files under the same project root.
That also seems to indicate that we don't need a separate command.
[Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread] |