bug#18083: 24.4.50; (emacs) Arguments and (elisp) Prefix Command Arguments

bug#18083: 24.4.50; (emacs) Arguments and (elisp) Prefix Command Arguments

[Drew Adams]

Both of these nodes speak of `M--', `M-3', etc.  They should also
mention the equivalent `C--', `C-3', etc.

It is fine to add that without a graphic display the latter keys are not
available, or to say that depending on your keyboard they might not be
available to Emacs, or some such.  But for the majority of Emacs users
(my guess - if not, a large number), these keys are available.  These
keys should be mentioned.


In GNU Emacs 24.4.50.1 (i686-pc-mingw32)
 of 2014-06-28 on ODIEONE
Bzr revision: 117431 rgm@gnu.org-20140628015517-eku6hj8mpgcvfnso
Windowing system distributor `Microsoft Corp.', version 6.1.7601
Configured using:
 `configure --prefix=/c/Devel/emacs/snapshot/trunk
 --enable-checking=yes,glyphs 'CFLAGS=-O0 -g3'
 LDFLAGS=-Lc:/Devel/emacs/lib 'CPPFLAGS=-DGC_MCHECK=1
 -Ic:/Devel/emacs/include''

bug#18083: 24.4.50; (emacs) Arguments and (elisp) Prefix Command Arguments

[Lars Ingebrigtsen]

Drew Adams <drew.adams@oracle.com> writes:

> Both of these nodes speak of `M--', `M-3', etc.  They should also
> mention the equivalent `C--', `C-3', etc.

I wonder whether the reason they aren't mentioned is that they're
deprecated or something?  Anybody know?

-- 
(domestic pets only, the antidote for overdose, milk.)
   bloggy blog: http://lars.ingebrigtsen.no

bug#18083: 24.4.50; (emacs) Arguments and (elisp) Prefix Command Arguments

[Drew Adams]

> > Both of these nodes speak of `M--', `M-3', etc.  They should also
> > mention the equivalent `C--', `C-3', etc.
> 
> I wonder whether the reason they aren't mentioned is that they're
> deprecated or something?  Anybody know?

No, they are not deprecated.  Presumably they are not mentioned
because they are not available in some Emacs terminal sessions.

That doesn't mean we shouldn't mention them - we should just
point out that they might not be available in some contexts.

They are particularly handy if you are using prefix args
a lot or repetitively, as they use the same modifier as `C-u'.
And they are somewhat easier for some people to type on some
(common) keyboards.

bug#18083: 24.4.50; (emacs) Arguments and (elisp) Prefix Command Arguments

[Eli Zaretskii]

> Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2016 16:01:41 -0700 (PDT)
> From: Drew Adams <drew.adams@oracle.com>
> Cc: 18083@debbugs.gnu.org
> 
> > > Both of these nodes speak of `M--', `M-3', etc.  They should also
> > > mention the equivalent `C--', `C-3', etc.
> > 
> > I wonder whether the reason they aren't mentioned is that they're
> > deprecated or something?  Anybody know?
> 
> No, they are not deprecated.  Presumably they are not mentioned
> because they are not available in some Emacs terminal sessions.
> 
> That doesn't mean we shouldn't mention them - we should just
> point out that they might not be available in some contexts.

FWIW, I know about them, but never use them.  So I'm not sure we
should mention them in the manual.

> They are particularly handy if you are using prefix args
> a lot or repetitively, as they use the same modifier as `C-u'.
> And they are somewhat easier for some people to type on some
> (common) keyboards.

I'm probably missing something because I don't see how both of the
above is not true about M-3 etc.

bug#18083: 24.4.50; (emacs) Arguments and (elisp) Prefix Command Arguments

[Drew Adams]

> > > > Both of these nodes speak of `M--', `M-3', etc.  They should also
> > > > mention the equivalent `C--', `C-3', etc.
> > >
> > > I wonder whether the reason they aren't mentioned is that they're
> > > deprecated or something?  Anybody know?
> >
> > No, they are not deprecated.  Presumably they are not mentioned
> > because they are not available in some Emacs terminal sessions.
> >
> > That doesn't mean we shouldn't mention them - we should just
> > point out that they might not be available in some contexts.
> 
> FWIW, I know about them, but never use them.  So I'm not sure we
> should mention them in the manual.

I guess that sums things up, then? ;-)

> > They are particularly handy if you are using prefix args
> > a lot or repetitively, as they use the same modifier as `C-u'.
> > And they are somewhat easier for some people to type on some
> > (common) keyboards.
> 
> I'm probably missing something because I don't see how both of the
> above is not true about M-3 etc.

What is true of C- is not necessarily true in all contexts
for M-, and vice versa.  C-- C-2 C-x C-t.  And yes, for some
keyboards or some hands one or the other might be easier to use.

This should not be about choosing to document only this one
or only that one.  And it should not be based on what you
tend to use or I tend to use.  It costs little to mention
that C- also can be used, like M-.

bug#18083: 24.4.50; (emacs) Arguments and (elisp) Prefix Command Arguments

[Eli Zaretskii]

> Date: Sat, 30 Apr 2016 07:16:34 -0800 (GMT-08:00)
> From: Drew Adams <drew.adams@oracle.com>
> Cc: larsi@gnus.org, 18083@debbugs.gnu.org
> 
> This should not be about choosing to document only this one
> or only that one.

Of course, it is.

> And it should not be based on what you tend to use or I tend to use.

Then how come you raise this, based on your experience?

> It costs little to mention that C- also can be used, like M-.

It's bloat we need to justify.

bug#18083: 24.4.50; (emacs) Arguments and (elisp) Prefix Command Arguments

[Drew Adams]

> > This should not be about choosing to document only this one
> > or only that one.
> 
> Of course, it is.

Why?  Why should we not document both?

> > And it should not be based on what you tend to use or I tend to use.
> 
> Then how come you raise this, based on your experience?

I am not, like you, claiming that my experience or preference
should be the only thing documented.  I'm for a big tent,
documenting what you prefer (M-) and what I prefer sometimes
(C-).  Not because you or I prefer this or that, but because
Emacs lets you use either one, and each is useful.

> > It costs little to mention that C- also can be used, like M-.
> 
> It's bloat we need to justify.

I've justified it.  And it's not bloat, but useful info for
users.

bug#18083: 24.4.50; (emacs) Arguments and (elisp) Prefix Command Arguments

[Eli Zaretskii]

> Date: Sat, 30 Apr 2016 09:12:01 -0800 (GMT-08:00)
> From: Drew Adams <drew.adams@oracle.com>
> Cc: larsi@gnus.org, 18083@debbugs.gnu.org
> 
> > > This should not be about choosing to document only this one
> > > or only that one.
> > 
> > Of course, it is.
> 
> Why?  Why should we not document both?

Asked and answered already.

> > > And it should not be based on what you tend to use or I tend to use.
> > 
> > Then how come you raise this, based on your experience?
> 
> I am not, like you, claiming that my experience or preference
> should be the only thing documented.  I'm for a big tent,
> documenting what you prefer (M-) and what I prefer sometimes
> (C-).  Not because you or I prefer this or that, but because
> Emacs lets you use either one, and each is useful.

They are all documented in the doc string of digit-argument.

> > > It costs little to mention that C- also can be used, like M-.
> > 
> > It's bloat we need to justify.
> 
> I've justified it.  And it's not bloat, but useful info for
> users.

We disagree about the balance.