Re: Proposal: add a binding for `imenu' under M-g

[Brian Cully]

Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> writes:
> To me, imenu is a facility to find definitions of functions, so it is
> conceptually very similar to M-. and other such features.  We don't
> perceive M-. as a "go" command, do we?

        If I were not already very used to M-. to jump to a definition,
finding it under “M-g” would feel natural to me. Likewise, M-? being
bound under “M-s” also makes sense intuitively. The former, I do think
of as a “go” in spite of the name of the command, and the latter I think
of as a search.

        Funnily enough, while imenu is probably more closely related to
M-? -- being presented with a list of options to choose -- I think of it
more as a “go to”. I think the difference is context. Most of the time
when I invoke imenu, I *know* where I want to go, and imenu is what I
consider the fastest way to get there. When I invoke the other commands
I’m searching for something, but I don’t know precisely what yet.

        imenu obviously works in both contexts, so I’m just throwing in
my two cents. It feels more natural to me under M-g than M-s. I also use
M-g bindings way, way more often than M-s, which is probably skewing my
intuition. Heck, I have a custom imenu binding (“C-c j” for ’jump’) that
I probably use more often than all the commands under the M-s prefix
combined.

-bjc