Re: Emacs-devel Digest, Vol 204, Issue 12

[Pedro Andres Aranda Gutierrez <paaguti@gmail.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1488 bytes --]

Message: 15
> Date: Thu, 11 Feb 2021 20:03:01 +0100
> From: Óscar Fuentes <ofv@wanadoo.es>
> To: emacs-devel@gnu.org
> Subject: Re: Smarter M-x that filters on major-mode
> Message-ID: <87r1lmjul6.fsf@telefonica.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain
>
> <tomas@tuxteam.de> writes:
>
> > Nobody uses M-x in an explorative way?
> >
> > IMO this is a bad idea for discoverability. What is (and what is not)
> > relevant to a mode is necessarily subject to a judgement call by
> > someone.
> >
> > Some thought needs to go into how give users a way to escape that
> > confinement, I think.
>
> I do use M-x in an explorative way all the time. I was the proponent of
> the M-x filter when this was discussed a few years ago.
>
> I don't want to see a zillion of irrelevant commands when I'm fishing
> for interesting things on a given context.
>
> This is about leaving out commands which only make sense when certain
> minor or major mode is active. I can't see how this would hamper
> learning by exploration.
>
> There has to be a middle way... Sometimes. when I'm hacking on Emacs Lisp,
I need to remember the exact
name of a function (for another major mode) and the unfiltered M-x is a
nice way of doing that.

You know the approx name and

M-x <what you remember>-TAB

is a quick and convenient way of finding out... Although <f1>-f is an
alternative, my fingers yearn for M-x.
Maybe I'll need to "reprogram them" ;-) but I'd better not

Best, /PA

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 2242 bytes --]