[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Suggestion: Mapping of M-g should be goto-line
From: |
Danilo Segan |
Subject: |
Re: Suggestion: Mapping of M-g should be goto-line |
Date: |
Thu, 25 Mar 2004 10:46:07 +0100 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.1002 (Gnus v5.10.2) Emacs/21.3.50 (gnu/linux) |
Today at 7:11, Jari Aalto wrote:
> If put side by side, "set face default" and goto-line, I would
> estimate that the 99 % of the cases, there is more need for
> goto-line. Therefore it would be better if the M-g was mapped
> to it.
Emacs tries hard to make goto-line unnecessary, AFAICT. Can you
provide an example of when goto-line couldn't be replaced with a
better functionality (such as using M-x next-error)?
> Users need line information. After all, Emacs for most, is
> programming language development environment: C / C++, Python,
> Perl, Ruby etc. In time they may find and start use other
> features like Gnus, Mail and others.
Exactly, and that's why the next-error and friends are so useful — I
need not worry about typing the exact line number, because I do not
care about the exact line number. I care about the place with
certain code/error/whatever, and that's where I want to go. Emacs
has the context available, so better make use of it.
FWIW, C-x ` is bound to next-error, and it's a big win in situations
like this.
> The "de facto" situation for long has been that everybody maps
> M-g to goto-line. People advice that in newsgroups, because it
> is indeed the most logical key.
>
> If we would take a poll in Emacs newsgroups, presumably the
> "yes" votes for goto-line would win in great majority.
Perhaps, but that doesn't mean that it's a right thing to do.
I seldom use current M-g binding as well, but not less than M-x
goto-line.
Cheers,
Danilo
- Re: Suggestion: Mapping of M-g should be goto-line, (continued)
- Re: Suggestion: Mapping of M-g should be goto-line, Richard Stallman, 2004/03/27
- Re: Suggestion: Mapping of M-g should be goto-line, Per Abrahamsen, 2004/03/26
- Re: Suggestion: Mapping of M-g should be goto-line, Alan Mackenzie, 2004/03/26
- Re: Suggestion: Mapping of M-g should be goto-line, Per Abrahamsen, 2004/03/26
- Re: Suggestion: Mapping of M-g should be goto-line, David Kastrup, 2004/03/26
Re: Suggestion: Mapping of M-g should be goto-line, Stefan Monnier, 2004/03/25
Re: Suggestion: Mapping of M-g should be goto-line,
Danilo Segan <=
- Re: Suggestion: Mapping of M-g should be goto-line, Lucas, 2004/03/25
- Re: Suggestion: Mapping of M-g should be goto-line, Juanma Barranquero, 2004/03/25
- Re: Suggestion: Mapping of M-g should be goto-line, Jari Aalto+mail.linux, 2004/03/25
- Re: Suggestion: Mapping of M-g should be goto-line, Danilo Segan, 2004/03/25
- Re: Suggestion: Mapping of M-g should be goto-line, Juanma Barranquero, 2004/03/25
- Re: Suggestion: Mapping of M-g should be goto-line, Danilo Segan, 2004/03/25
- Re: Suggestion: Mapping of M-g should be goto-line, Juanma Barranquero, 2004/03/25
- Re: Suggestion: Mapping of M-g should be goto-line, Danilo Segan, 2004/03/25
- Re: Suggestion: Mapping of M-g should be goto-line, Juanma Barranquero, 2004/03/25
- Re: Suggestion: Mapping of M-g should be goto-line, Kim F. Storm, 2004/03/25