Re: Abbrevs for the most frequent elisp symbols

[Emanuel Berg <embe8573@student.uu.se>]

Andreas Röhler <andreas.roehler@easy-emacs.de> writes:

> The question is: does the occurrence inside the
> manual or the source provide indication WRT
> probability of personal usage?

That would have to be done on-the-fly which would be
too slow (?) unless the person doing it could feed it
with a personal Elisp library or some sufficiently
large amount of Elisp in his prefered way to
counterweight the source learning data - it could be a
weighted measure, like if the source says 9 to 1, and
the personal code says the opposite, only in much less
quantity, the personal code would still win because it
is more likely the person who wrote that will write
something similar again.

Also, the program could simply ask at ambiguities
which the prefered one is. Then that would then be
added as a rule.

Or how about, right after expansion, one could iterate
expansions by a keystroke - e.g., like with yanking:
first do C-y (`yank'), then do M-y (`yank-pop`), and
even

    (defun yank-pop-back (&optional arg)
      (interactive "*p")
      (yank-pop (if arg (* arg -1) -1)) )

It also depends how many ambiguities there are. If
they are everywhere, whatever you do it will bite you
hard more often than anyone would like.

(Now I'm only discussing this from your perspective
because I think nothing beats typing.)

-- 
underground experts united