Page order in describe-bindings

Page order in describe-bindings

[T.V Raman]

At present, C-h b (describe-bindings)
shows all the minor mode bindings first, and  places the major mode
bindings at the end.

So for instance, when called in a help-mode buffer, the help-mode
bindings are 3400 lines down.

Could we (should we) display major-mode bindings first?
-- 

Re: Page order in describe-bindings

[Eli Zaretskii]

> From: "T.V Raman" <raman@google.com>
> Date: Sat, 02 Mar 2024 20:08:21 -0800
> 
> At present, C-h b (describe-bindings)
> shows all the minor mode bindings first, and  places the major mode
> bindings at the end.
> 
> So for instance, when called in a help-mode buffer, the help-mode
> bindings are 3400 lines down.
> 
> Could we (should we) display major-mode bindings first?

I don't think this is a good idea, since someone will come later
complaining that they want the minor mode first...

The *Help* buffer generated by "C-h b" has the outline-minor-mode
turned on, so navigation is easy (e.g., "C-c @ C-n" and "C-c @ C-p" to
move between sections).  And maybe you want to customize
describe-bindings-outline-rules to the nil value, which will make the
sections hidden, with only the section headings visible: then you can
easily unhide only the section you are interested in.  I think
outline-minor-mode all but eliminates the need to decide which part is
first and which follows it.

Re: Page order in describe-bindings

[T.V Raman]

thanks, didn't know about the outline-rules custom option
-- 

Re: Page order in describe-bindings

[Richard Stallman]

[[[ To any NSA and FBI agents reading my email: please consider    ]]]
[[[ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies,     ]]]
[[[ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example. ]]]

  > Could we (should we) display major-mode bindings first?

We certainly could.

Here is why I decided to show the minor modes first.
(1) minor mode bindings override major mode bindings.
(2) minor modes typically did not make many bindinms/
Given those facts, the ordering of minor first
was natural and convenient.

Perhaps nowadays the facts are different; perhaps the major-first
order would be good.  But don't be quick to assume that is generally
true.

I have a hunch that the diversity of binding situations is much more now
and that developing a good way to show them all might require more thought.

-- 
Dr Richard Stallman (https://stallman.org)
Chief GNUisance of the GNU Project (https://gnu.org)
Founder, Free Software Foundation (https://fsf.org)
Internet Hall-of-Famer (https://internethalloffame.org)

Re: Page order in describe-bindings

[Eli Zaretskii]

> From: Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org>
> Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org
> Date: Sun, 03 Mar 2024 22:45:31 -0500
> 
> I have a hunch that the diversity of binding situations is much more now
> and that developing a good way to show them all might require more thought.

We now display the *Help* buffer with bindings in outline-minor-mode,
which makes navigation between sections much easier.  In addition,
users can customize an option to start the *Help* buffer in "folded"
mode, where only the section heading lines are shown, in which case
the major-mode section is just one or 2 lines away.

Re: Page order in describe-bindings

[T.V Raman]

Makes sense. I also suspect that we now have a far larger number of
minor modes than in the day. One possibility -- in addition to Eli's
suggestion to start with the buffered folded via outlines is to
perhaps have a customization option that simply reverses the order on
user choice.

Richard Stallman writes:
 > [[[ To any NSA and FBI agents reading my email: please consider    ]]]
 > [[[ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies,     ]]]
 > [[[ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example. ]]]
 > 
 >   > Could we (should we) display major-mode bindings first?
 > 
 > We certainly could.
 > 
 > Here is why I decided to show the minor modes first.
 > (1) minor mode bindings override major mode bindings.
 > (2) minor modes typically did not make many bindinms/
 > Given those facts, the ordering of minor first
 > was natural and convenient.
 > 
 > Perhaps nowadays the facts are different; perhaps the major-first
 > order would be good.  But don't be quick to assume that is generally
 > true.
 > 
 > I have a hunch that the diversity of binding situations is much more now
 > and that developing a good way to show them all might require more thought.
 > 
 > -- 
 > Dr Richard Stallman (https://stallman.org)
 > Chief GNUisance of the GNU Project (https://gnu.org)
 > Founder, Free Software Foundation (https://fsf.org)
 > Internet Hall-of-Famer (https://internethalloffame.org)
 > 

--