Re: Suggestion: Mapping of M-g should be goto-line

[Danilo Segan]

Today at 14:53, Juanma Barranquero wrote:

>> Lets not knowingly hide very
>> useful features such as next-error, and expose goto-line instead.
>
> The falacy here is that you consider next-error much more useful than
> goto-line. I don't. I'd bet for users in general, many of which will
> never compile a thing, going to a line is orders of magnitude more usual
> than searching for an error.

Yeah, I did make all conclusions on the assumption that next-error is
more usable then goto-line.  If that assumption fails, so do all the
conclusions I made ;)

Apart from programming-like stuff, I really cannot imagine lots of
examples that really need goto-line.  And what I can imagine, it can
be automated, or it resembles programming a lot (like TeX/dvi).
next-error is not used only for programming (eg. po-mode for
translating program UIs via gettext PO files also makes use of it, and
it has nothing to do with programming).

>> since I'd like to point out that many others who
>> reach for goto-line probably don't)
>
> Or, perhaps, it's just that there are not alternatives for a simple
> task: going to a line. Not an error line, not a line containing some
> text, just to the line numbered X. 

I still cannot imagine a real world example where such a thing would
be _commonly_ used, but I'll blame my programming-deviation on that. ;)

I think I'll ease on the spamming of emacs-devel for a while :)

Cheers,
Danilo