menu items

menu items

[Nick Roberts]

The menu items are too distracting.  I would like to see the key
bindings permanently greyed out as they are of secondary interest.  This
probably flies in the face of convention, however, so how about just removing 
the brackets surrounding the key binding?  This makes them a bit quieter and
does seem to follow convention ( = expectation).

-- 
Nick                                           http://www.inet.net.nz/~nickrob


2008-01-05  Nick Roberts  <nickrob@snap.net.nz>

	* keyboard.c (parse_menu_item): Don't enclose key bindings on
	menu bar in parentheses.


--- keyboard.c	2008-01-05 21:34:07.000000000 +1300
*************** parse_menu_item (item, notreal, inmenuba
*** 8110,8116 ****
    tem = XCDR (cachelist);
    if (newcache && !NILP (tem))
      {
!       tem = concat3 (build_string ("  ("), tem, build_string (")"));
        XSETCDR (cachelist, tem);
      }
  
--- 8110,8117 ----
    tem = XCDR (cachelist);
    if (newcache && !NILP (tem))
      {
!       tem = concat2 (build_string ("  "), tem);
!       // tem = concat3 (build_string ("  ("), tem, build_string (")"));
        XSETCDR (cachelist, tem);
      }

Re: menu items

[martin rudalics]

> The menu items are too distracting.  I would like to see the key
> bindings permanently greyed out as they are of secondary interest.

Optionally, please.

> This
> probably flies in the face of convention, however, so how about just removing 
> the brackets surrounding the key binding?  This makes them a bit quieter and
> does seem to follow convention ( = expectation).

If you mean removing the parentheses in say "(C-x C-f)" I'd be fully
in favor.  Occasionally, the closing parenthesis makes it hard for me
to read the binding.

Re: menu items

[Juri Linkov]

> The menu items are too distracting.  I would like to see the key
> bindings permanently greyed out as they are of secondary interest.
> This probably flies in the face of convention, however, so how about
> just removing the brackets surrounding the key binding?  This makes
> them a bit quieter and does seem to follow convention ( =
> expectation).

I agree that brackets are confusing since some menu entries use
brackets for other purposes (for instance, "Postscript Print Buffer (B+W)"
displays "(B+W)" on the right side that looks like a key binding).

Maybe a better format would be the same as used in the Emacs documentation
with single quotes like `C-x C-w'?  This still causes less noise than
brackets.

-- 
Juri Linkov
http://www.jurta.org/emacs/

RE: menu items

[Drew Adams]

> > The menu items are too distracting.  I would like to see the key
> > bindings permanently greyed out as they are of secondary interest.
> > This probably flies in the face of convention, however, so how about
> > just removing the brackets surrounding the key binding?  This makes
> > them a bit quieter and does seem to follow convention ( =
> > expectation).
>
> I agree that brackets are confusing since some menu entries use
> brackets for other purposes (for instance, "Postscript Print Buffer (B+W)"
> displays "(B+W)" on the right side that looks like a key binding).
>
> Maybe a better format would be the same as used in the Emacs documentation
> with single quotes like `C-x C-w'?  This still causes less noise than
> brackets.

I'm against graying out (dimming) the binding , except possibly as a user
option. Dimming in a menu generally signifies that something is unavailable
in the current context.

I'm in favor of removing the parentheses. I'm against adding single quotes.
A binding is clearest in this context with nothing around it: C-' for
Control apostrophe. As long as the binding is set off from the item name by
a few spaces, it shouldn't need anything additional to identify it.

Re: menu items

[Lennart Borgman (gmail)]

Drew Adams wrote:
> I'm against graying out (dimming) the binding , except possibly as a user
> option. Dimming in a menu generally signifies that something is unavailable
> in the current context.
> 
> I'm in favor of removing the parentheses. I'm against adding single quotes.
> A binding is clearest in this context with nothing around it: C-' for
> Control apostrophe. As long as the binding is set off from the item name by
> a few spaces, it shouldn't need anything additional to identify it.


I agree with Drew here.