[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: tags-loop-continue
From: |
Dmitry Gutov |
Subject: |
Re: tags-loop-continue |
Date: |
Sun, 10 Jan 2016 19:14:14 +0300 |
User-agent: |
Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:43.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/43.0 |
On 01/10/2016 06:54 PM, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
I think you've just heard from someone who evidently does use them:
http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/emacs-devel/2016-01/msg00627.html
But not with default key bindings. I'd classify Ingo's message as an
evidence that we're allowed not to care too much about the default binding.
C-, is too nice a key binding to spend on them.
You mean 'M-,', I presume.
Yes, sorry.
If we want to retain some global binding for tags-loop-continue, let's move it
to C-*.
I'm afraid it won't go down well with the users of those commands.
None of the early adopters complained thus far.
In any case, we're changing a lot of things already. The most
curmudgeonly users will have a lot to complain about anyway.
Besides, 'C-*' is not available on TTYs.
And here, I meant 'M-*'. The binding formerly used by pop-tag-mark.
I asked "how", not "where". This command (tags-loop-continue) existed
before and had a keybinding; it will also exist in Emacs 25.1 -- how
do we explain that it now has a different keybinding, or no keybinding
at all? What good reasons do we give for such a backward-incompatible
change in a veteran command?
The command won't change--only its bindings. Because we expect it to be
used considerably less often from now on.
Other than that, what technical solution is used to keep the command
and its keybinding available is unimportant, I think.
It doesn't seem like tags-search uses any special keymap during its execution.
I didn't talk about tags-search, I'm talking only about
tags-loop-continue.
Because tags-query-replace uses a special keymap, we can bind
tags-loop-continue to M-, in it. _Maybe_ we can similarly use a new
keymap during tags-search's execution.
If you think it's a good idea, I can look into it.
On the flip side, the users may get confused that M-, is bound to
different commands in different contexts.
I think it should remain an interactive command
(so it could be easily rebound and invoked by name), and it should be
bound to 'M-,' as it was before.
I will stick out like a sore thumb, being entirely useless with the xref
interface, and only serving the more obscure use cases.
Let's not take up the handy key combination just for that.
We will need to find a new binding
for xref-query-replace, which is unfortunate, but I don't see a better
way forward.
Apparently you mean xref-pop-marker-stack. See the two proposed ways
forward described above (use M-*, or only set up the M-, binding during
tags-search and tags-query-replace).
- RE: tags-loop-continue, (continued)
- Re: tags-loop-continue, Eli Zaretskii, 2016/01/10
- Re: tags-loop-continue, Dmitry Gutov, 2016/01/10
- RE: tags-loop-continue, Drew Adams, 2016/01/10
- Re: tags-loop-continue, Dmitry Gutov, 2016/01/10
- Re: tags-loop-continue, Eric Abrahamsen, 2016/01/11
- Re: tags-loop-continue, Eli Zaretskii, 2016/01/10
- Re: tags-loop-continue,
Dmitry Gutov <=
- Re: tags-loop-continue, Eli Zaretskii, 2016/01/10
- Re: tags-loop-continue, Dmitry Gutov, 2016/01/10
- Re: tags-loop-continue, Eli Zaretskii, 2016/01/10
- Re: tags-loop-continue, Dmitry Gutov, 2016/01/13
- Re: tags-loop-continue, Eli Zaretskii, 2016/01/14
- Re: tags-loop-continue, Dmitry Gutov, 2016/01/14
- Re: tags-loop-continue, Eli Zaretskii, 2016/01/14
- Re: tags-loop-continue, Dmitry Gutov, 2016/01/14
- Re: tags-loop-continue, Dmitry Gutov, 2016/01/14
- Re: tags-loop-continue, Eli Zaretskii, 2016/01/14