Re: Ideas to improve the output of C-h m?

["Clément Pit-Claudel" <cpitclaudel@gmail.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1227 bytes --]

On 01/05/2020 11.55, Stefan Monnier wrote:
>> I have pasted at the botom of this email the output of the current C-h
>> m and the output of the code I wrote a while ago.  Here's how it looks
>> for a single entry, to see the difference (note that unlike C-h m, it
>> currently groups keybindings that map to the same command):
> 
> I think grouping is a good idea, tho the current "columnar" output has
> its advantages as well.
> 
>>     ‘C-c @’ (outline-mark-subtree)
>>       Mark the current subtree in an outlined document.
>>     ‘C-c C-n’ (outline-next-visible-heading)
>>       Move to the next visible heading line.
> 
> More importantly, while I like the idea of showing the first line of the
> docstring, I find the above much harder to read.  It makes the common
> `C-c` and `outline-` prefixes much less obvious so you can't so easily
> focus on the other parts to find what you're looking for.

That's fair, though with a bit of luck that was partly due to the text-only output.  WDYT of the attached screenshot? (of course the issue remains to some extent, but hopefully the font size, face, and spacing changes help?)
(I also removed the parentheses and the quotes, and re-added the vertical alignment)

[-- Attachment #2: light-theme.png --]
[-- Type: image/png, Size: 129812 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #3: dark-theme.png --]
[-- Type: image/png, Size: 141328 bytes --]