RE: [External] : Re: Proposal: add a binding for `imenu' under M-g

[Drew Adams]

> > >> From: Sean Whitton <spwhitton@spwhitton.name>
> > >> Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2022 07:16:02 -0700
> > >>
> > >> > `imenu' doesn't have a binding.  How about binding it to 'M-g i'?
> > >
> > > I wonder why M-g.  That prefix is for commands the "go" somewhere,
> > > and this one doesn't.
> >
> > But the purpose of imenu is "go to the index entry", it just offers
> > completion before that.
> 
> We have a lot of commands that display a menu of possibilities, and
                   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> I'm not sure it is valid to consider them all as "go to somewhere".
                     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Did someone say that all commands that display a menu
should be considered as providing menu items that go
somewhere?

(FWIW, I don't really care whether we add an `imenu'
key binding on `M-g'.  I'm just pointing to the jump
in logic of that statement.  It went "somewhere"...)

Imenu menu items do generally "go somewhere", IMO.

Similarly, most bookmark "jump" commands generally
"go somewhere".  So do commands such as `find-file',
`pop-to-buffer', and `other-window'.

Whether this or that command (accessed from a menu
or not) deserves access from prefix key `M-g' is a
question to be answered case by case.  Command
`imenu' is a reasonable contender, I think.

Maybe that's what you really meant?  Lots of commands
go somewhere.  That general characterization likely
can't be the sole argument to give a command a binding
on `M-g'.  Otherwise we'd have a pretty large set of
`M-g' bindings.

If that's your point then I agree with it.  Maybe
any "go somewhere" command could be considered for
`M-g' candidacy.  But I don't think consideration of
such candidacy applies to all commands that show a
menu.  Going somewhere is relevant here.  Showing a
menu, in itself, is not.