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

[David Kastrup]

Richard Stallman <address@hidden> writes:

> I want Emacs to move in the direction of doing word processing.  It
> may take years, but we will get there.  Then commands to specify
> faces will become important, and will need a good key binding.
> 
> I chose the M-g binding for that reason, and the reason continues to
> have force.  So I don't intend to change that binding.

I can't see the particular mnemonic value of that binding.  Even if we
stipulate the importance of its function, it's not very in line with
Emacs' tradition of having bindings one can easily remember.

And apart from not being easy to remember, it's not that easy to type
either: if you are not using a keyboard with Meta key, M-g M-g is
quite inconvenient to type, and if you are using a keyboard with a
Meta key, M-g b where you have to let go of the Meta key in the right
moment is inconvenient to type.

AUCTeX has for its font selection commands C-c C-f C-t (for example,
for switching to typewriter).  There are a few differences (for
example, if a transient region is active, the font selection command
applies to that region), but the main point is
a) it is easy to remember
b) it is easy to type
Even if the M-g binding would work under AUCTeX, I doubt that anyone
would prefer to use it.

Of course, assigning M-g to goto-line is not something we should do
before we have found a better place for the font selection commands.
If we manage to find such a place, however (one that is both easy to
type and associate with fonts or faces), there would not be much
sense not changing into a setup that would be convenient for all
users, including those that work with text processing.

And don't tell me I am not concerned with them: I use Emacs almost
exclusively for text processing and am maintainer of the LaTeX WYSIWYG
extension preview-latex for it as well as AUCTeX.

-- 
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum