Re: Suggestion to have highlight related bindings consistent between search-map and hi-lock-map

[Juri Linkov <juri@linkov.net>]

> Here are my reasons to remove the "C-x w" map:
> - The bindings are inconsistent between the "M-s h" and "C-s w" maps.
> - In addition to confusion, the bindings are also duplicated in two prefix
> maps.
> - Also if we remove this prefix map today, we will have lesser number of
> disappointed users than when and if it is removed in the future.
>
> Here is the piece from earlier in this thread where I compared the
> inconsistent bindings (the line numbers can be ignored as they might not be
> the same today):
>
> hi-lock.el 277: (define-key map "\C-xwi" 'hi-lock-find-patterns)
> bindings.el 935: (define-key search-map "hf" 'hi-lock-find-patterns)
>
> hi-lock.el 282: (define-key map "\C-xwr" 'unhighlight-regexp)
> bindings.el 934: (define-key search-map "hu" 'unhighlight-regexp)
>
> hi-lock.el 280: (define-key map "\C-xwh" 'highlight-regexp)
> bindings.el 930: (define-key search-map "hr" 'highlight-regexp)
>
> hi-lock.el 283: (define-key map "\C-xwb"
> 'hi-lock-write-interactive-patterns)
> bindings.el 936: (define-key search-map "hw"
> 'hi-lock-write-interactive-patterns)
>
> The source of this discussion is because I kept getting confused if I need
> to do "M-s h r" or "C-x w r" to highlight a regexp. So after a point, I
> bound C-x w to nil to solve the problem.
>
> That made me think that this topic should also be brought up in this thread
> and have this fixed directly in the source.

Maybe conducting a poll will help to see how many users will be disappointed.