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

[Stefan Monnier]

>> >> >> For what it's worth I always thought C-c C-c was the natural binding
>> >> >> for `compile' (or more generally for "here, I'm done editing, now
>> >> >> process what I've edited").
[...]
>> Isn't AUCTeX's central dispatcher supposed to be a "better compile"
>> so that you don't need compile for those cases?

> Better?  It substitutes for most of it, yes, but if you have
> processes like weaving a noweb file or other autogenerated stuff,
> AUCTeX can be a bit tedious.  For example, generating index and
> glossary and so on often is done by Makefiles in more complicated
> projects.

But people who need that can do M-x compile RET, right?
After all that's what they do already.

> Well, Gnus sends mail and articles with C-c C-c,

Yes, exactly what I said "process what I've edited".  I've never felt the
need to compile an email.

> calc finished editing,

Do you mean it just quits with C-c C-c?  Or does it take the result of
your editing and processes it?

> PCL-vcs aborts a job,

That was maybe a poor choice.

> most shell modes send an interrupt (don't tell me you never want to use
> compile from a shell), and so on.

I never want to use compile from a shell, to tell you the truth.
Why would you ever want to?

> It's not exactly the least used key combination.

Indeed and it often means "process what Ive just edited", which in an email
means "send it" and in a C buffer means "compile it".

C-c C-c is currently globally unbound and I suggest we bind it to `compile'.
Major modes would be encouraged to override it with mode-specific
implementations of the idea of "process what I've just edited", like AUCTeX
and message already do.


        Stefan