From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Eli Zaretskii Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Do shorthands break basic tooling (tags, grep, etc)? (was Re: Shorthands have landed on master) Date: Mon, 04 Oct 2021 19:51:50 +0300 Message-ID: <83lf3868d5.fsf@gnu.org> References: <16338bdc2497fc51c6fb6d54ab370bfb@webmail.orcon.net.nz> <831r59kyhf.fsf@gnu.org> <834ka4k15m.fsf@gnu.org> <83y27gijmz.fsf@gnu.org> <8335pmgnjy.fsf@gnu.org> <604da2cb10ac61f2b8b89a02c89056be@webmail.orcon.net.nz> <83a6jtff87.fsf@gnu.org> <5ac7a31cf2959c31c262a3377c736a5a@webmail.orcon.net.nz> <83ilygew7p.fsf@gnu.org> <83fstjdiwl.fsf@gnu.org> <871r534s2o.fsf@gmail.com> <87sfxgx09x.fsf@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="40129"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" Cc: psainty@orcon.net.nz, acm@muc.de, rms@gnu.org, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: =?utf-8?B?Sm/Do28gVMOhdm9yYQ==?= Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Mon Oct 04 18:53:25 2021 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([209.51.188.17]) by ciao.gmane.io with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1mXRDQ-000AFO-VI for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Mon, 04 Oct 2021 18:53:24 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:59458 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1mXRDP-0006Xu-Qg for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Mon, 04 Oct 2021 12:53:23 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:59202) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1mXRCF-0005VH-0S for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 04 Oct 2021 12:52:11 -0400 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]:43096) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1mXRCD-0003Hq-05; Mon, 04 Oct 2021 12:52:09 -0400 Original-Received: from 84.94.185.95.cable.012.net.il ([84.94.185.95]:4752 helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1mXRC6-0004Ai-HZ; Mon, 04 Oct 2021 12:52:03 -0400 In-Reply-To: <87sfxgx09x.fsf@gmail.com> (message from =?utf-8?B?Sm/Do28g?= =?utf-8?B?VMOhdm9yYQ==?= on Mon, 04 Oct 2021 16:44:26 +0100) X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: "Emacs-devel" Xref: news.gmane.io gmane.emacs.devel:276230 Archived-At: > From: João Távora > Cc: psainty@orcon.net.nz, acm@muc.de, eliz@gnu.org, emacs-devel@gnu.org > Date: Mon, 04 Oct 2021 16:44:26 +0100 > > The system is behaving as designed. Famous last words ;-) Seriously, though: IME, this is not a popular response to user requests. > In the sequence C-h o s-foo, the last 5 characters typed are not the > name of a symbol, they are the name of a shorthand (a shorthand is _not_ > a symbol) that you are seeing (in the sense of "with your eyes"") in > some buffer. If it is impossible, or hard, or inappropriate (in your opinion) to support s-foo in this use case, would it be possible to have a special command that would expand the shorthand in the minibuffer? That is, the user types "C-h o s-foo " and that replaces s-foo with the expansion, the "real" symbol. Is that feasible? > * So, if we follow our first instincts (they were my first instincts, > too!), it means that the exact same Help input in two different > situations could bring about different results. That already happens in any number of situations, and shouldn't prevent us from adding one more. The most trivial example is buffer-local variables; another example is mode-specific commands (a recent addition in Emacs 28). And there are many more: a user who expects identical Emacs behaviors in different buffers will be extremely disappointed.