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

[David Kastrup]

Danilo Segan <address@hidden> writes:

> Today at 13:25, Jari Aalto wrote:
> 
> > * Thu 2004-03-25 Danilo Segan <dsegan <AT> gmx.net> mail.default.spool
> > | That's only a reason to educate them better, ...
> >
> > That is not the correct way. I believe that if there is functionality
> > that is not appropriate for the 99 % of the users, it should be
> > changed - not matter what other "education" might then be.
> 
> I'm not arguing for keeping M-g bound to face changing functions.  I'm
> arguing for not using goto-line more than next-error and other
> mechanisms, since they're *easier* to use.
> 
> > But you missed the point. Emacs is a companion. It should be a good
> > one.  Right now M-g is not a good companion. It could be much better
> > with goto-line.
> 
> Exactly, and it would be even better if it was bound to next-error.

No.  Emacs keybinding are, with few exceptions, designed to be
mnemonic.  In contrast to vi, we take RSI as the lesser evil than
contorting your brain to remember a keybinding.

M-g is mnemonic for goto-line.  It isn't for next-error.

-- 
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum