Re: Key binding M-g should really be goto-line

Re: Key binding M-g should really be goto-line

[Juri Linkov]

I see `goto-line' finally bound to M-g in CVS.  Good news!
After such a big change, it is time now for a few improvements.

1. Before this change, font-lock-fontify-block was bound to `M-g M-g'.
Now it is bound to `M-o M-g'.  I suspect that the reason to bind it
to `M-g M-g' was to make it easier to run this frequent command
by typing the same key twice.  If this is true then now perhaps it
should be rebound to `M-o M-o'.

2. goto-line is not too frequent command to deserve the sole
M-g key.  There are many other goto-related commands that could
share the same mnemonics and have the common M-g prefix key.
Since goto-line is still the most frequent among them, it could
have also the most easily typed key binding `M-g M-g'.

Other commands that deserve a key binding with a `M-g' prefix are:

2.1. next-error (alias goto-next-locus), previous-error

The current key binding C-x ` is too hard to type on
many keyboards, and it is the constant cause of complaints.
The prefix key M-g will allow to add natural key bindings
for these commands and to reduce complaints in future.

2.2. dired-goto-file

This command is used to move point to the specified file name in
dired buffers.  It would be useful to run this command not only
in dired buffers, but in any buffer, with a new key binding.

2.3. goto-char is much less used command than goto-line,
but sometimes it's needed and could have a key binding too.

2.4. The M-g prefix key will also reserve a space for adding
other goto-related commands later.  Similarly to facemenu-keymap
which currently displays the message after typing M-o:

Set face: default, bold, italic, l = bold-italic, underline, Other...

M-g could display a message:

Go to: line, M-g = line, char, file, next error, prev error, Other...

and have a keymap with the following key bindings:

M-g M-g   - goto-line
M-g l     - goto-line
M-g c     - goto-char
M-g f     - dired-goto-file
M-g n     - next-error (goto-next-locus)
M-g M-n   - next-error (goto-next-locus)
M-g p     - previous-error
M-g M-p   - previous-error

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

Re: Key binding M-g should really be goto-line

[Miles Bader]

On Wed, 09 Mar 2005 09:05:33 +0200, Juri Linkov <juri@jurta.org> wrote:
> 2. goto-line is not too frequent command to deserve the sole
> M-g key.  There are many other goto-related commands that could
> share the same mnemonics and have the common M-g prefix key.

Hmmm, not a bad idea.  I especially like the fact that next-error &c
could have a less annoying binding that C-x ` (also completely
unintuitive).

> Since goto-line is still the most frequent among them, it could
> have also the most easily typed key binding `M-g M-g'.

It would be good to also have a plain "g" binding for goto-line, for
those people that use ESC instead of a real meta key -- it's much
easier to hit `ESC g g' than  `ESC g ESC g' (you've already done this
for the other "meta" commands in the keymap).

[I suppose it's people that use ESC that might object most strenuously
to the prefix-key idea.]

-Miles

p.s. I have M-g bound to `fill-paragraph' myself... :-)
-- 
Do not taunt Happy Fun Ball.

Re: Key binding M-g should really be goto-line

[Kim F. Storm]

Juri Linkov <juri@jurta.org> writes:

> 2. goto-line is not too frequent command to deserve the sole
> M-g key.  There are many other goto-related commands that could
> share the same mnemonics and have the common M-g prefix key.

Brilliant ideas!!  I second ALL of your suggestions.

One command I use quite often is "find-file-and-line-near-point" which
takes something like FILE:LINE "near" the cursor and jumps to LINE in
FILE.  

I use this when I look at backtraces in bug-reports (of course, I
already have code which can do this, but a logical binding would be
nice).

M-g j would be an excellent binding for this.

-- 
Kim F. Storm <storm@cua.dk> http://www.cua.dk

Re: Key binding M-g should really be goto-line

[Juri Linkov]

storm@cua.dk (Kim F. Storm) writes:
> One command I use quite often is "find-file-and-line-near-point"
> which takes something like FILE:LINE "near" the cursor and jumps to
> LINE in FILE.

This is what `goto-line' is supposed to do.  Since it was already
completely modified recently with the complex logic of getting
a line number from the buffer and jumping to the most recently
displayed other buffer, why not modify it further to get a file
name from the buffer (before colon and the line number) and to
visit it before moving to the specified line number.

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

Re: Key binding M-g should really be goto-line

[David Kastrup]

Juri Linkov <juri@jurta.org> writes:

> I see `goto-line' finally bound to M-g in CVS.  Good news!  After
> such a big change, it is time now for a few improvements.

Can you spell "Can-Of-Worms"?  Can you spell "feature freeze"?

> 1. Before this change, font-lock-fontify-block was bound to `M-g
> M-g'.  Now it is bound to `M-o M-g'.  I suspect that the reason to
> bind it to `M-g M-g' was to make it easier to run this frequent
> command by typing the same key twice.  If this is true then now
> perhaps it should be rebound to `M-o M-o'.

So far, I can agree.

> 2. goto-line is not too frequent command to deserve the sole
> M-g key.  There are many other goto-related commands that could
> share the same mnemonics and have the common M-g prefix key.

Forget it.  No precedence, no previous desire, not fitting the feature
freeze.  Is this a plot to distract people from releasing?

> Other commands that deserve a key binding with a `M-g' prefix are:
>
> 2.1. next-error (alias goto-next-locus), previous-error
>
> The current key binding C-x ` is too hard to type on
> many keyboards, and it is the constant cause of complaints.

C-x ` completely sucks as a keybinding on many international
keyboards.  We need a new keybinding alternative at some point of
time.  But M-g is clean out, in my opinion.  Really.

My proposal for an C-x ` alternative would be C-x ? which appears to
be free at the moment.  ? is a frequent character in all languages I
know, and so it should be more accessible than ` on most keyboards.
It also is connotated with "error" somewhat.

-- 
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum

Re: Key binding M-g should really be goto-line

[Miles Bader]

> My proposal for an C-x ` alternative would be C-x ? which appears to
> be free at the moment.  ? is a frequent character in all languages I
> know, and so it should be more accessible than ` on most keyboards.
> It also is connotated with "error" somewhat.

That's really no better than C-x ` so what's the point (the "also
connotated with error" thing is so tenuous as to be worthless)? 
Either we should change it to something good, or just leave it as is
until the next release.

[My personal binding for next-error is `C-x C-n', which just
completely rocks; but Juri's suggestion is pretty good too.]

-Miles
-- 
Do not taunt Happy Fun Ball.

Re: Key binding M-g should really be goto-line

[David Kastrup]

Miles Bader <snogglethorpe@gmail.com> writes:

>> My proposal for an C-x ` alternative would be C-x ? which appears to
>> be free at the moment.  ? is a frequent character in all languages I
>> know, and so it should be more accessible than ` on most keyboards.
>> It also is connotated with "error" somewhat.
>
> That's really no better than C-x ` so what's the point (the "also
> connotated with error" thing is so tenuous as to be worthless)?

As a user of an American keyboard, you would not understand.  On
almost all keyboards of the world, getting ` is at best tedious, at
worst impossible or at least error-prone, usually yielding an accent
instead of a backquote.  For example, on a German keyboard you get `
by typing Shift-= SPC (where = means the American position for =), so
the whole sequence becomes C-x Shift-= SPC.

On a French keyboard, it is Right-Alt-7.  And so on.

> Either we should change it to something good, or just leave it as is
> until the next release.

For most languages of the world, ` is one heck of a nuisance.

-- 
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum

Re: Key binding M-g should really be goto-line

[Kim F. Storm]

David Kastrup <dak@gnu.org> writes:

> Juri Linkov <juri@jurta.org> writes:
>
>> 2. goto-line is not too frequent command to deserve the sole
>> M-g key.  There are many other goto-related commands that could
>> share the same mnemonics and have the common M-g prefix key.
>
> Forget it.  No precedence, 

Huh?  M-g was a prefix key before the change...

>                            no previous desire, not fitting the feature
> freeze.  Is this a plot to distract people from releasing?

IMO, it is a reasonable opportunity to DTRT before locking M-g down as
a single command-key only.

> C-x ` completely sucks as a keybinding on many international
> keyboards.  We need a new keybinding alternative at some point of
> time.  But M-g is clean out, in my opinion.  Really.

Why?  I think it is excellent.  Good mnemonic.

> My proposal for an C-x ` alternative would be C-x ? which appears to
> be free at the moment.  ? is a frequent character in all languages I
> know, and so it should be more accessible than ` on most keyboards.

That is C-x S-? on my keyboard which is still cumbersome for
something you type very frequently.

M-g-n (hold M while pressing g + n) is just so much better, and
allows you to go back as well M-g-p ...

And it is also easy to repeat M-g-n-g-n-g-p (ups, got one too far).

-- 
Kim F. Storm <storm@cua.dk> http://www.cua.dk

Re: Key binding M-g should really be goto-line

[Piet van Oostrum]

>>>>> storm@cua.dk (Kim F. Storm) (KFS) wrote:

>KFS> David Kastrup <dak@gnu.org> writes:
>>> Juri Linkov <juri@jurta.org> writes:
>>> 
>>>> 2. goto-line is not too frequent command to deserve the sole
>>>> M-g key.  There are many other goto-related commands that could
>>>> share the same mnemonics and have the common M-g prefix key.
>>> 
>>> Forget it.  No precedence, 

>KFS> Huh?  M-g was a prefix key before the change...

Was it? In gnus it is bound to  gnus-summary-rescan-group. At least in the
version a month or so ago.
-- 
Piet van Oostrum <piet@cs.uu.nl>
URL: http://www.cs.uu.nl/~piet [PGP]
Private email: piet@vanoostrum.org

Re: Key binding M-g should really be goto-line

[Miles Bader]

On Thu, 10 Mar 2005 10:18:49 +0100, Piet van Oostrum <piet@cs.uu.nl> wrote:
> >KFS> Huh?  M-g was a prefix key before the change...
> 
> Was it? In gnus it is bound to  gnus-summary-rescan-group. At least in the
> version a month or so ago.

Yup.  You're allowed to bind over prefix keys... :-)

Of course the usefulness of Gnus' local binding will have to be
re-evaluated with the new global binding in mind (the old global
binding of M-g was not at all useful for Gnus).

-Miles
-- 
Do not taunt Happy Fun Ball.

Re: Key binding M-g should really be goto-line

[Kim F. Storm]

Piet van Oostrum <piet@cs.uu.nl> writes:

>>>>>> storm@cua.dk (Kim F. Storm) (KFS) wrote:
>
>>KFS> David Kastrup <dak@gnu.org> writes:
>>>> Juri Linkov <juri@jurta.org> writes:
>>>> 
>>>>> 2. goto-line is not too frequent command to deserve the sole
>>>>> M-g key.  There are many other goto-related commands that could
>>>>> share the same mnemonics and have the common M-g prefix key.
>>>> 
>>>> Forget it.  No precedence, 
>
>>KFS> Huh?  M-g was a prefix key before the change...
>
> Was it? In gnus it is bound to  gnus-summary-rescan-group. At least in the
> version a month or so ago.

I'm talking about the global binding, not some buffer local binding.

IMO, the gnus M-g binding should definitely be removed in the
*Article* buffer, as is makes good sense to use goto-line to another
buffer based on a file:linenumber found in a mail message (e.g. a
backtrace in a bug report).

The M-g binding can remain in gnus summary buffers if people prefer...

-- 
Kim F. Storm <storm@cua.dk> http://www.cua.dk

M-g binding in Gnus (was: Key binding M-g should really be goto-line)

[Reiner Steib]

On Thu, Mar 10 2005, Miles Bader wrote:

> Of course the usefulness of Gnus' local binding will have to be
> re-evaluated with the new global binding in mind (the old global
> binding of M-g was not at all useful for Gnus).

I don't think that goto-line (and friends) are important enough *in
Gnus* to change the current `M-g' bindings there.

On Thu, Mar 10 2005, Kim F. Storm wrote:

> IMO, the gnus M-g binding should definitely be removed in the
> *Article* buffer, as is makes good sense to use goto-line to another
> buffer based on a file:linenumber found in a mail message (e.g. a
> backtrace in a bug report).

Wouldn't the "file:linenumber" feature require an absolute filename
unless the buffer local value `default-directory' happens to be
appropriate?  I'd guess that such situations are rare (sender and
recipient often have different file locations).

> The M-g binding can remain in gnus summary buffers if people prefer...

Bye, Reiner.
-- 
       ,,,
      (o o)
---ooO-(_)-Ooo---  |  PGP key available  |  http://rsteib.home.pages.de/

Re: M-g binding in Gnus

[Kim F. Storm]

Reiner Steib <reinersteib+gmane@imap.cc> writes:

> Wouldn't the "file:linenumber" feature require an absolute filename
> unless the buffer local value `default-directory' happens to be
> appropriate?  I'd guess that such situations are rare (sender and
> recipient often have different file locations).

I always start gnus in emacs/src directory -- so I can quickly look at
backtraces...  

Otherwise, M-x cd is your friend.

-- 
Kim F. Storm <storm@cua.dk> http://www.cua.dk

Re: M-g binding in Gnus

[Reiner Steib]

On Thu, Mar 10 2005, Kim F. Storm wrote:

> Reiner Steib <reinersteib+gmane@imap.cc> writes:
>
>> Wouldn't the "file:linenumber" feature require an absolute filename
>> unless the buffer local value `default-directory' happens to be
>> appropriate?  I'd guess that such situations are rare (sender and
>> recipient often have different file locations).
>
> I always start gnus in emacs/src directory -- so I can quickly look at
> backtraces...  

I see.  But do you really think that this situation is so common that
it's relevant for the _default_ binding of M-g in Gnus?  I don't think
so.

(Probably it would even be sufficient _for you_ to change M-g to goto
only in the Emacs related groups.)

Bye, Reiner.
-- 
       ,,,
      (o o)
---ooO-(_)-Ooo---  |  PGP key available  |  http://rsteib.home.pages.de/

Re: M-g binding in Gnus

[Kim F. Storm]

Reiner Steib <reinersteib+gmane@imap.cc> writes:

> On Thu, Mar 10 2005, Kim F. Storm wrote:
>
>> Reiner Steib <reinersteib+gmane@imap.cc> writes:
>>
>>> Wouldn't the "file:linenumber" feature require an absolute filename
>>> unless the buffer local value `default-directory' happens to be
>>> appropriate?  I'd guess that such situations are rare (sender and
>>> recipient often have different file locations).
>>
>> I always start gnus in emacs/src directory -- so I can quickly look at
>> backtraces...  
>
> I see.  But do you really think that this situation is so common that
> it's relevant for the _default_ binding of M-g in Gnus?  I don't think
> so.
>
> (Probably it would even be sufficient _for you_ to change M-g to goto
> only in the Emacs related groups.)

I'm not talking about M-g => goto-line, but M-g as a prefix key for
various goto-xxx commands.   

IMO, the FILE:LINE format should not be recognized by the ordinary
goto-line command -- it should be a separate command on, e.g. M-g f.

Mnemonic:  M-g f => goto file at point

In the future, there may be many useful "goto" commands with the M-g
prefix.  Gnus shouldn't assume that none of those bindings will be
useful in a gnus-related window.

For example, if M-g m did something like "goto *Messages* buffer", and
M-g c was "goto *compilation* buffer", gnus shouldn't hide those
bindings.

-- 
Kim F. Storm <storm@cua.dk> http://www.cua.dk

Re: Key binding M-g should really be goto-line

[Richard Stallman]

I think I will move the goto-line binding to M-g M-g,
making it a prefix key, so that in the future we can
put on other commands.

Re: Key binding M-g should really be goto-line (To M-g M-g or not to M-g)

[Jari Aalto]

| >David Kastrup <dak@gnu.org> writes:
| > no previous desire, not fitting the feature
| > freeze.  Is this a plot to distract people from releasing?
| 
| IMO, it is a reasonable opportunity to DTRT before locking M-g down as
| a single command-key only.

Juri made interesting suggestings, and I would see it beneficial if
future be taken into consideration as well.

M-g  prefix sounds good for future additions.
M-g M-g for goto-line sounds fast enough, because it's same key.

| > C-x ` completely sucks as a keybinding on many international
| > keyboards.  We need a new keybinding alternative at some point of
| > time.  But M-g is clean out, in my opinion.  Really.
| 
| Why?  I think it is excellent.  Good mnemonic.

As keyboards all over the world differ greatly, any use of the exotic
punctuation character can cause lot of trouble. These include:

    `
    ½
    §
    ^
    ~
    @
    
And even these are sometimes problematic on TTY connections
(and even worse with modifiers)

    \          
    |

Jari

Re: Key binding M-g should really be goto-line (To M-g M-g or not to M-g)

[David Kastrup]

Jari Aalto <jari.aalto@cante.net> writes:

> | >David Kastrup <dak@gnu.org> writes:
> | > no previous desire, not fitting the feature
> | > freeze.  Is this a plot to distract people from releasing?
> | 
> | IMO, it is a reasonable opportunity to DTRT before locking M-g down as
> | a single command-key only.
>
> Juri made interesting suggestings, and I would see it beneficial if
> future be taken into consideration as well.
>
> M-g  prefix sounds good for future additions.
> M-g M-g for goto-line sounds fast enough, because it's same key.

Only if you have a Meta key.  But doubling it up with M-g g would make
that a non-issue mostly.

-- 
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum

Re: Key binding M-g should really be goto-line (To M-g M-g or not to M-g)

[Jari Aalto]

| Jari Aalto <jari.aalto@cante.net> writes:
| 
| > | >David Kastrup <dak@gnu.org> writes:
| > | > no previous desire, not fitting the feature
| > | > freeze.  Is this a plot to distract people from releasing?
| > | 
| > | IMO, it is a reasonable opportunity to DTRT before locking M-g down as
| > | a single command-key only.
| >
| > Juri made interesting suggestings, and I would see it beneficial if
| > future be taken into consideration as well.
| >
| > M-g  prefix sounds good for future additions.
| > M-g M-g for goto-line sounds fast enough, because it's same key.
| 
| Only if you have a Meta key.  But doubling it up with M-g g would make
| that a non-issue mostly.

Indeed. Tt would be cubersome to use ESC + g ESC + g in TTY and defeat
the fast access to the command.

  M-g g    would be better
 
Jari

Re: Key binding M-g should really be goto-line

[Romain Francoise]

Juri Linkov <juri@jurta.org> writes:

> M-g could display a message:

> Go to: line, M-g = line, char, file, next error, prev error, Other...

> and have a keymap with the following key bindings:

> M-g M-g   - goto-line
> M-g l     - goto-line
> M-g c     - goto-char
> M-g f     - dired-goto-file
> M-g n     - next-error (goto-next-locus)
> M-g M-n   - next-error (goto-next-locus)
> M-g p     - previous-error
> M-g M-p   - previous-error

This is a very good idea.  However, Dired users are probably used to M-g
not being a prefix key since it's been bound to dired-goto-file in
Dired-X for as long as I can remember (more than 11 years, says CVS).

That being said, I'm very much in favor of this change--especially the
bindings you suggest for next-error and previous-error.

-- 
Romain Francoise <romain@orebokech.com> | With your feet in the air and
it's a miracle -- http://orebokech.com/ | your head on the ground.

Re: Key binding M-g should really be goto-line

[David Kastrup]

Romain Francoise <romain@orebokech.com> writes:

> Juri Linkov <juri@jurta.org> writes:
>
>> M-g could display a message:
>
>> Go to: line, M-g = line, char, file, next error, prev error, Other...
>
>> and have a keymap with the following key bindings:
>
>> M-g M-g   - goto-line
>> M-g l     - goto-line
>> M-g c     - goto-char
>> M-g f     - dired-goto-file
>> M-g n     - next-error (goto-next-locus)
>> M-g M-n   - next-error (goto-next-locus)
>> M-g p     - previous-error
>> M-g M-p   - previous-error
>
> This is a very good idea.

I am afraid that I have a hard time not to agree after thinking it
over.

> However, Dired users are probably used to M-g not being a prefix key
> since it's been bound to dired-goto-file in Dired-X for as long as I
> can remember (more than 11 years, says CVS).

Well, one could put M-g M-g on that in dired mode, but have M-g M-g
mean goto-line in most other modes.

It seems absurd to have dired-goto-file as a global binding.

> That being said, I'm very much in favor of this change--especially
> the bindings you suggest for next-error and previous-error.

Well, yes.  It makes just too much sense to throw the idea out the
door.

-- 
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum

Re: Key binding M-g should really be goto-line

[Miles Bader]

On Wed, 09 Mar 2005 23:34:54 +0100, David Kastrup <dak@gnu.org> wrote:
> It seems absurd to have dired-goto-file as a global binding.

Actually I often want to jump to a file's dired entry while visiting
the file.  It's not like it's all _that_ hard to do now (just do `C-x
C-f RET' to visit the cur directory, and look for the file), but the
concept is not completely absurd.

-Miles
-- 
Do not taunt Happy Fun Ball.

Re: Key binding M-g should really be goto-line

[David Kastrup]

Miles Bader <snogglethorpe@gmail.com> writes:

> On Wed, 09 Mar 2005 23:34:54 +0100, David Kastrup <dak@gnu.org> wrote:
>> It seems absurd to have dired-goto-file as a global binding.
>
> Actually I often want to jump to a file's dired entry while visiting
> the file.  It's not like it's all _that_ hard to do now (just do `C-x
> C-f RET' to visit the cur directory, and look for the file), but the
> concept is not completely absurd.

Granted.

-- 
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum

Re: Key binding M-g should really be goto-line

[Johan Bockgård]

Miles Bader <snogglethorpe@gmail.com> writes:

> Actually I often want to jump to a file's dired entry while visiting
> the file. It's not like it's all _that_ hard to do now (just do `C-x
> C-f RET' to visit the cur directory, and look for the file), but the
> concept is not completely absurd.

Indeed not. It's called `dired-jump' (bound to C-x C-j when dired-x is
loaded).

-- 
Johan Bockgård

Re: Key binding M-g should really be goto-line

[Juri Linkov]

bojohan+news@dd.chalmers.se (Johan Bockgård) writes:
> Indeed not. It's called `dired-jump' (bound to C-x C-j when dired-x
> is loaded).

It is good as a global binding, but it has one limitation: it can't jump
to an arbitrary file, it jumps only to buffer-file-name when called
not from a dired buffer.  It would be useful to move `dired-jump'
to dired.el and to modify it to ask the file name with the default
set to buffer-file-name (or to create a new similar function and
bind it to M-g f).

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

Re: Key binding M-g should really be goto-line

[Romain Francoise]

Juri Linkov <juri@jurta.org> writes:

> It would be useful to move `dired-jump' to dired.el and to modify it
> to ask the file name with the default set to buffer-file-name (or to
> create a new similar function and bind it to M-g f).

I can second the suggestion to move `dired-jump' to dired.el, it's one
of the most useful commands in Dired.  But jumping to an unrelated file
doesn't sound that intuitive to me, and I definitely don't want to have
to confirm the command each time I use it.

-- 
Romain Francoise <romain@orebokech.com> | But you don't care for me and
it's a miracle -- http://orebokech.com/ | I don't care now for anybody.

Re: Key binding M-g should really be goto-line

[David Kastrup]

Romain Francoise <romain@orebokech.com> writes:

> Juri Linkov <juri@jurta.org> writes:
>
>> It would be useful to move `dired-jump' to dired.el and to modify it
>> to ask the file name with the default set to buffer-file-name (or to
>> create a new similar function and bind it to M-g f).
>
> I can second the suggestion to move `dired-jump' to dired.el, it's
> one of the most useful commands in Dired.  But jumping to an
> unrelated file doesn't sound that intuitive to me, and I definitely
> don't want to have to confirm the command each time I use it.

It would be somewhat consistent with typical Emacs applications if the
file name was prompted for only when a prefix argument was given.

-- 
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum

Re: Key binding M-g should really be goto-line

[Romain Francoise]

David Kastrup <dak@gnu.org> writes:

> It would be somewhat consistent with typical Emacs applications if the
> file name was prompted for only when a prefix argument was given.

Unfortunately, the prefix argument is already used to jump to the file
in another window.

-- 
Romain Francoise <romain@orebokech.com> | Why did you kill that poor
it's a miracle -- http://orebokech.com/ | old man, melody? She said,
                                        | "He was never good to me"

Re: Key binding M-g should really be goto-line

[Andreas Schwab]

Romain Francoise <romain@orebokech.com> writes:

> David Kastrup <dak@gnu.org> writes:
>
>> It would be somewhat consistent with typical Emacs applications if the
>> file name was prompted for only when a prefix argument was given.
>
> Unfortunately, the prefix argument is already used to jump to the file
> in another window.

The prompt could be triggered by a specific prefix argument like C-u 0
(aka M-0 aka C-0).

Andreas.

-- 
Andreas Schwab, SuSE Labs, schwab@suse.de
SuSE Linux Products GmbH, Maxfeldstraße 5, 90409 Nürnberg, Germany
Key fingerprint = 58CA 54C7 6D53 942B 1756  01D3 44D5 214B 8276 4ED5
"And now for something completely different."

Re: Key binding M-g should really be goto-line

[Kim F. Storm]

Andreas Schwab <schwab@suse.de> writes:

> Romain Francoise <romain@orebokech.com> writes:
>
>> David Kastrup <dak@gnu.org> writes:
>>
>>> It would be somewhat consistent with typical Emacs applications if the
>>> file name was prompted for only when a prefix argument was given.
>>
>> Unfortunately, the prefix argument is already used to jump to the file
>> in another window.
>
> The prompt could be triggered by a specific prefix argument like C-u 0
> (aka M-0 aka C-0).

If M-g is a prefix, putting it on a different key, e.g. M-g j, is
much easier than messing with special prefix args.


-- 
Kim F. Storm <storm@cua.dk> http://www.cua.dk

Re: Key binding M-g should really be goto-line

[Romain Francoise]

Juri Linkov <juri@jurta.org> writes:

> I see `goto-line' finally bound to M-g in CVS.  Good news!
> After such a big change, it is time now for a few improvements.

Now that Richard has changed M-g to be a prefix key, can we implement
this plan?

We already have:

M-g M-g   - goto-line
M-g g     - goto-line

The candidates are:

M-g c     - goto-char
M-g n     - next-error (goto-next-locus)
M-g M-n   - next-error (goto-next-locus)
M-g p     - previous-error
M-g M-p   - previous-error

Undecided:

M-g f     - dired-goto-file? (doesn't work in non-Dired buffers)
M-g j     - Kim's find-file-and-line-near-point?
M-g j     - dired-jump? (or a similar function which prompts for a file
            name)

-- 
Romain Francoise <romain@orebokech.com> | Why did you kill that poor
it's a miracle -- http://orebokech.com/ | old man, melody? She said,
                                        | "He was never good to me"

M-g suffixes. Was: Key binding M-g should really be goto-line

[David Kastrup]

Romain Francoise <romain@orebokech.com> writes:

> Juri Linkov <juri@jurta.org> writes:
>
>> I see `goto-line' finally bound to M-g in CVS.  Good news!
>> After such a big change, it is time now for a few improvements.

Of course Juri is being facetious.  The binding of M-g was a small
change as compared to the improvements.  If he'd have come up with
them before, maybe the argument would not have taken so long: the
improvements are what makes this really good.

> Now that Richard has changed M-g to be a prefix key, can we
> implement this plan?
>
> We already have:
>
> M-g M-g   - goto-line
> M-g g     - goto-line
>
> The candidates are:
>
> M-g c     - goto-char

Maybe the binding M-g = would be a better complement to C-x =
(what-cursor-position)?

M-g b      - goto-byte (non-existent yet)

If one application is supposed to make use of error offsets from
external applications, it is quite likely that those will be given in
bytes instead of characters for this kind of granularity.  goto-byte
would need to take a look at buffer-file-coding-system in general, as
it would not do to do the accounting in Emacs-internal units.

> M-g n     - next-error (goto-next-locus)
> M-g M-n   - next-error (goto-next-locus)
> M-g p     - previous-error
> M-g M-p   - previous-error

Most definitely YES!

> Undecided:
>
> M-g f     - dired-goto-file? (doesn't work in non-Dired buffers)
> M-g j     - Kim's find-file-and-line-near-point?

M-g . 

> M-g j     - dired-jump? (or a similar function which prompts for a file
>             name)

-- 
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum

Re: M-g suffixes. Was: Key binding M-g should really be goto-line

[Romain Francoise]

David Kastrup <dak@gnu.org> writes:

>> M-g n     - next-error (goto-next-locus)
>> M-g M-n   - next-error (goto-next-locus)
>> M-g p     - previous-error
>> M-g M-p   - previous-error

> Most definitely YES!

I would also like to see `first-error' there while we're at it.  So how
about:

M-g <     - first-error

(Maybe as `M-g 1' too?)

-- 
Romain Francoise <romain@orebokech.com> | I like the streets when
it's a miracle -- http://orebokech.com/ | they're empty, I can make the
                                        | rest up.

Re: M-g suffixes. Was: Key binding M-g should really be goto-line

[David Kastrup]

Romain Francoise <romain@orebokech.com> writes:

> David Kastrup <dak@gnu.org> writes:
>
>>> M-g n     - next-error (goto-next-locus)
>>> M-g M-n   - next-error (goto-next-locus)
>>> M-g p     - previous-error
>>> M-g M-p   - previous-error
>
>> Most definitely YES!
>
> I would also like to see `first-error' there while we're at it.  So how
> about:
>
> M-g <     - first-error

While this is somewhat mnemonic, I don't see that it is necessary
given that C-u M-g n already exists.

> (Maybe as `M-g 1' too?)

Disagree.  Does not fit our usual patterns.

-- 
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum

Re: M-g suffixes. Was: Key binding M-g should really be goto-line

[Stefan Monnier]

>> M-g c     - goto-char

Huh?  I'd never have expected someone to actually suggest an interactive key
binding for goto-char.  But I now see that it even has a menu-bar entry.
What in the world for?

I also see that the docstring of goto-char is wrong.  How about the
patch below?

> M-g b      - goto-byte (non-existent yet)

That could make some sense.  But post-22.


        Stefan


--- editfns.c	23 jan 2005 11:39:55 -0500	1.389
+++ editfns.c	18 mar 2005 08:58:32 -0500	
@@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
 /* Lisp functions pertaining to editing.
-   Copyright (C) 1985,86,87,89,93,94,95,96,97,98,1999,2000,01,02,03,2004
-	Free Software Foundation, Inc.
+   Copyright (C) 1985, 1986, 1987, 1989, 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998,
+     1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005  Free Software Foundation, Inc.
 
 This file is part of GNU Emacs.
 
@@ -265,10 +265,7 @@
 
 DEFUN ("goto-char", Fgoto_char, Sgoto_char, 1, 1, "NGoto char: ",
        doc: /* Set point to POSITION, a number or marker.
-Beginning of buffer is position (point-min), end is (point-max).
-If the position is in the middle of a multibyte form,
-the actual point is set at the head of the multibyte form
-except in the case that `enable-multibyte-characters' is nil.  */)
+Beginning of buffer is position (point-min), end is (point-max).  */)
      (position)
      register Lisp_Object position;
 {

Re: M-g suffixes. Was: Key binding M-g should really be goto-line

[Gaetan Leurent]

Stefan Monnier wrote on 18 Mar 2005 14:58:48 +0100:

> Huh?  I'd never have expected someone to actually suggest an interactive key
> binding for goto-char.  But I now see that it even has a menu-bar entry.
> What in the world for?

Some compilers (eg ocaml) reports errors with character numbers instead
of line numbers. (Yeah, I know, there is already a caml mode to do
that...)

Re: Key binding M-g should really be goto-line

[Richard Stallman]

    Now that Richard has changed M-g to be a prefix key, can we implement
    this plan?

I would rather put this aside until after the release.
I would like a small group to organize to make a plan
for what to do with M-g, and discuss the question outside
of this list.  Would those who want to do this please do so?

Re: Key binding M-g should really be goto-line

[David Kastrup]

Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org> writes:

>     Now that Richard has changed M-g to be a prefix key, can we
>     implement this plan?
>
> I would rather put this aside until after the release.

Discussing the full population of this binding, I might agree here.
However, part of this proposal was due to C-x ` being very burdensome
to type on many international keyboards.  I don't think it makes sense
to introduce M-g as a prefix without populating at least those slots
which have made this proposal compelling.

So I think that the next release should at the very least contain the
(rather uncontentious) M-g M-p, M-g p, M-g M-n and M-g n bindings.
All the rest is nice in various degrees, but those seem rather
essential.

> I would like a small group to organize to make a plan
> for what to do with M-g, and discuss the question outside
> of this list.  Would those who want to do this please do so?

I'd be willing to participate in such an off-list discussion if it
proves necessary or beneficial.  Let's raise the bar by demanding that
anybody discussing it should also be willing to implement his
proposals including documentation.  Since we are talking about
functionality that seems quite convenient to the average user, this
includes the help sheets which probably should be checked for accuracy
before release, anyhow, requiring speakers of different languages.

-- 
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum

Re: Key binding M-g should really be goto-line

[Romain Francoise]

Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org> writes:

> I would rather put this aside until after the release.

I was hoping we could at least add the "candidates" from my list before
the release.  New bindings for previous-error and next-error would be
immediately useful and everyone involved in the discussion so far seemed
to agree.

> I would like a small group to organize to make a plan for what to do
> with M-g, and discuss the question outside of this list.  Would those
> who want to do this please do so?

We can just postpone this discussion to after the release.

-- 
Romain Francoise <romain@orebokech.com> | How long will it be before he
it's a miracle -- http://orebokech.com/ | sees you own his legs but his
                                        | mind is free?

Re: Key binding M-g should really be goto-line

[Richard Stallman]

    > I would like a small group to organize to make a plan for what to do
    > with M-g, and discuss the question outside of this list.  Would those
    > who want to do this please do so?

    We can just postpone this discussion to after the release.

We could, but that's not quite the issue.  I'm not talking about when
to have this discussion, I'm talking about where.  Having it on this
list would be distracting, so I would like interested people to
discuss the question outside this list.

We could do that later instead of now, if people remember the decision
to discuss this off the list.