[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: next-error-last-buffer
From: |
Richard Stallman |
Subject: |
Re: next-error-last-buffer |
Date: |
Fri, 28 May 2004 21:44:27 -0400 |
goto-error: C-m, C-c C-c, M-o
Why do we want to define M-o as well as the other two?
That doesn't follow any general convention, it isn't more
convenient than C-m, and it isn't needed for compatibility.
next-error-no-visit: M-n
Let's call that forward-error-message.
previous-error-no-visit: M-p
Let's call that backward-error-message.
next-error-file-no-select: M-}, M-N
I'd rather avoid defining M-N and M-P as different from M-n and M-p.
We don't need to do it; M-{ and M-} are equally easy to type.
Also, let's call these commands forward-error-source-file
and backward-error-source-file.
next-error-file: new global command without keybindings
previous-error-file: new global command without keybindings
What would these new commands do?
- Re: next-error-last-buffer, (continued)
- Re: next-error-last-buffer, Richard Stallman, 2004/05/25
- Re: next-error-last-buffer, Juri Linkov, 2004/05/25
- Re: next-error-last-buffer, Ted Zlatanov, 2004/05/26
- Re: next-error-last-buffer, Juri Linkov, 2004/05/28
- Re: next-error-last-buffer, Richard Stallman, 2004/05/28
- Re: next-error-last-buffer, Stefan Monnier, 2004/05/28
- Re: next-error-last-buffer, Juri Linkov, 2004/05/28
- Re: next-error-last-buffer, Ted Zlatanov, 2004/05/29
- Re: next-error-last-buffer, Richard Stallman, 2004/05/29
Re: next-error-last-buffer, Juri Linkov, 2004/05/25
- Re: next-error-last-buffer,
Richard Stallman <=