From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Danilo Segan Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Suggestion: Mapping of M-g should be goto-line Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2004 13:55:48 +0100 Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+emacs-devel=quimby.gnus.org@gnu.org Message-ID: <86vfktcch7.fsf@avet.kvota.net> References: <861xnhfee8.fsf@avet.kvota.net> <86brmldvbd.fsf@avet.kvota.net> <8yhp3yh7.fsf@blue.sea.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: deer.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1080223378 19731 80.91.224.253 (25 Mar 2004 14:02:58 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2004 14:02:58 +0000 (UTC) Cc: Juanma Barranquero , Lucas , emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+emacs-devel=quimby.gnus.org@gnu.org Thu Mar 25 15:02:48 2004 Return-path: Original-Received: from quimby.gnus.org ([80.91.224.244]) by deer.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1B6VRY-0002yg-00 for ; Thu, 25 Mar 2004 15:02:48 +0100 Original-Received: from monty-python.gnu.org ([199.232.76.173]) by quimby.gnus.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1B6VRY-0006DF-00 for ; Thu, 25 Mar 2004 15:02:48 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.30) id 1B6V6U-00072x-I5 for emacs-devel@quimby.gnus.org; Thu, 25 Mar 2004 08:41:02 -0500 Original-Received: from list by monty-python.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.30) id 1B6Usb-0004rx-Kw for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 25 Mar 2004 08:26:41 -0500 Original-Received: from mail by monty-python.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.30) id 1B6UKq-0000R5-9D for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 25 Mar 2004 07:52:19 -0500 Original-Received: from [217.65.194.13] (helo=avet.kvota.net) by monty-python.gnu.org with smtp (Exim 4.30) id 1B6UKl-0000QA-9w for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 25 Mar 2004 07:51:44 -0500 Original-Received: (qmail 32246 invoked by uid 1001); 25 Mar 2004 12:55:48 -0000 Original-To: jari.aalto@poboxes.com (Jari Aalto+mail.linux) Mail-Followup-To: jari.aalto@poboxes.com (Jari Aalto+mail.linux), emacs-devel@gnu.org, Lucas , Juanma Barranquero In-Reply-To: <8yhp3yh7.fsf@blue.sea.net> (Jari Aalto's message of "Thu, 25 Mar 2004 14:25:24 +0200") User-Agent: Gnus/5.1002 (Gnus v5.10.2) Emacs/21.3.50 (gnu/linux) X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.4 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+emacs-devel=quimby.gnus.org@gnu.org Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:20897 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.devel:20897 Today at 13:25, Jari Aalto wrote: > * Thu 2004-03-25 Danilo Segan gmx.net> mail.default.spool > | That's only a reason to educate them better, ... > > That is not the correct way. I believe that if there is functionality > that is not appropriate for the 99 % of the users, it should be > changed - not matter what other "education" might then be. I'm not arguing for keeping M-g bound to face changing functions. I'm arguing for not using goto-line more than next-error and other mechanisms, since they're *easier* to use. > But you missed the point. Emacs is a companion. It should be a good > one. Right now M-g is not a good companion. It could be much better > with goto-line. Exactly, and it would be even better if it was bound to next-error. You're not bringing any points that my view is not a valid one, or usage patterns where using goto-line is easier than next-error, or "emacsclient [+LINE[:COLUMN]]". Visual tools should provide a way to enter any editor at "current" line (like DVI viewers do), and creating web pages is only a very tiny subset of what people do with Emacs today. > | I suggest you try "emacsclient -n +5 path/to/file" > | ... With all this, I rarely if ever need to use M-x goto-line. > > For you maybe. I believe the more user friendly Emacs is, the better > people get a hand on it. This seems strange. Are you actually claiming that if I compile a program in one xterm, and get an error like some-main-file.c:655: error, this is error it's easier for me to remember filename (main.c), line number (655), switch to Emacs (which might hide the current xterm, or which might be in the different workspace), find-file main.c (for which I usually need to type couple of path components as well), type whatever-the-shortcut for goto-line (eg. M-g), and enter the line number (provided I didn't forget it this far :)? Instead of the simple emacsclient -n +655 some-main-file.c while reading both the line number and filename on the screen (so no need to remember them), and making use of name completion in the terminal? How could the first approach using goto-line be "more user friendly" than the latter? If that's your point, I strongly disagree. And no, I'm not talking only about me, I'm talking about everyone using a terminal outside Emacs for such tasks. > Why do you think there is vi(1) people that never touched emacs? Some, at least, do it for religious reasons ;) vi also has a completely different philosophy, and all the things that stand for Emacs, also stand for vi, and maybe even more so -- it's even harder for newbies to use, so I don't really understand your bringing it up (and those who want may try M-x viper instead). I surely don't think Emacs should try to replicate "user-friendliness" of vi ;) > Or Windows users that use programmer's file editor instead of Emacs? Because Emacs is entirely different from how other Windows programs behave? C-x, C-c don't do the tasks people got used them to do in Windows environment? > Little things can make a difference sometimes. M-g could play a tiny > part towards it. Yeah, but I'm still not convinced that binding goto-line there is that tiny part towards it. > | For "average joe", we want to make them learn the better way. > > Sure, they can add line to .emacs to map goto-line. Everybody > can. Millions of users can. But that's unproductive and unnecessary. I'm not that insane to claim that adding a line to .emacs is the "better way" if a feature is to be used by most of the users. I'm trying to point out that there's such a need for goto-line only because other Emacs features which are the right way are not exposed enough: so, we need to expose them instead, not to expose goto-line.