Re: C-h a vs. M-x apropos

[Charles Sebold]

It might be more appropriate to post this to gnu.emacs.bug; that is more
likely to catch the eye of the appropriate Emacs developers.

(For what it's worth, I think that your proposal makes sense.)

On 2 Kislev 5761, kgold@watson.ibm.com wrote:

> 
> I know that 
>       C-h a
> shows only functions, while
>       M-x apropos
> shows a lot more.
> 
> The tutorial explains C-h, and it seems so logical for a newbie to use
> C-h a.  I often see posts recommending the more comprehensive M-x
> apropos.
> 
> I consider this a bug.  Wouldn't it make more sense to have C-h a be
> the same as M-x apropos, so that it does what a new user would expect?
> 
> Expert still have M-x apropos-command, which I think is the same as
> C-h a.
> 
> Opinions.

-- 
Charles Sebold
Random Answer to an Emacs Very Frequently Asked Question:
 W3 does not show images on Emacsen <v21; use XEmacs or v21.
--
2nd of Kislev, 5761
--
Laser effects, mirrored balls -- John Williams must be rolling around
in his grave.

                -- Homer Simpson
                   The Springfield Connection