Re: Fwd: M-x shell question

[Kaushal Modi <kaushal.modi@gmail.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1202 bytes --]

On Fri, Aug 19, 2016 at 1:29 AM Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org> wrote:

> That name is logical, but inconvenient: you have to type s h e SPC SPC c d.
>
> 'shell-this-directory' is almost as inconvenient: s h e SPC SPC t.
>

I believe that keeping package name as first part of the command improves
discoverability. If I were to look into what all commands are available
related to 'shell', I can easily come across 'shell-cd' or 'shell-foo'
 with packages like ido or counsel or helm and start using it. But if the
command is 'cd-shell', that reduces the discoverability (unless you have
the fuzzy search enabled in packages like ido).

I would just bind 'shell-cd' to a binding (like "C-c d s" maybe? :) ), if I
find myself using it very often. But naming it 'cd-shell' just so that it
comes up with lesser chars to type for guessing the right command doesn't
seem like a permanent solution to access that command quickly. What if
tomorrow we have more commands starting with 'cds'? Again, having
'cd-shell' show up as the best match for 'c d s' is very subjective. It is
very useful to people using 'cd-shell' or 'shell-cd' regularly, but
probably not to others.

What do you think?
-- 

Kaushal Modi

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1728 bytes --]