[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re[2]: ill-advised changes [was key bindings in hideshow.el]
From: |
Eric M. Ludlam |
Subject: |
Re[2]: ill-advised changes [was key bindings in hideshow.el] |
Date: |
Tue, 13 Feb 2001 15:37:12 -0500 |
>>> Richard Stallman <address@hidden> seems to think that:
> If outline-mode is too restrictive, then a more general
> `overview-mode' may need to be designed with the correct scope. Here
> are some examples of `overviews' I found. Not all are directly
> related to folding.
>
>Most of these are major modes. I thought the proposal was to allocate
>M-o to minor modes.
[ ... ]
Yes and No. Yes, the original proposal was to allocate M-o for minor
modes. I was making a counter-proposal for M-o being allocated to this
`outline/folding/summary/whatever-mode' that was not a minor mode, but
a set of utilities like vc or comint.
If folding/outlining/summarizing is a generally useful activity for
all types of files, then I would propose that M-o could be used for
that and be `always-on'. This would be the same as version-control
(vc) which is always on, and is useful for multiple types of files.
This is also just a proposal for a new notion. The list I included in
my previous email was for all programs I could find that had a folding
or outlining capability as meat to a conversation on the topic of what
it means to fold, overview, or summarize a buffer under diverse
conditions.
Example: If a base folding/summarizing/overview library was concocted,
would RMAIL use it? Would an RMAIL like interface with a separate
summary buffer be useful for a C file?
Example: In C, a base folding library may hide function bodies (like
hide-show). Would that same code be useful in RMAIL or Gnus in hiding
quoted text?
That is why I included both. If any answers above are yes, then we
learned something. If not, we still learned something.
Eric
--
Eric Ludlam: address@hidden, address@hidden
Home: www.ultranet.com/~zappo Siege: www.siege-engine.com
Emacs: http://cedet.sourceforge.net GNU: www.gnu.org
- Re: ill-advised changes [was key bindings in hideshow.el], (continued)
- Re: Re[2]: ill-advised changes [was key bindings in hideshow.el], Kai Großjohann, 2001/02/06
- Re: ill-advised changes [was key bindings in hideshow.el], Richard Stallman, 2001/02/07
- Re: ill-advised changes [was key bindings in hideshow.el], Kai Großjohann, 2001/02/07
- Re[2]: ill-advised changes [was key bindings in hideshow.el], Eric M. Ludlam, 2001/02/07
- Re: ill-advised changes [was key bindings in hideshow.el], Richard Stallman, 2001/02/11
- Re: ill-advised changes [was key bindings in hideshow.el], Per Abrahamsen, 2001/02/12
- Re[2]: ill-advised changes [was key bindings in hideshow.el], Eric M. Ludlam, 2001/02/12
- Re: ill-advised changes [was key bindings in hideshow.el], Richard Stallman, 2001/02/13
- Re[2]: ill-advised changes [was key bindings in hideshow.el],
Eric M. Ludlam <=
- Re: ill-advised changes [was key bindings in hideshow.el], Richard Stallman, 2001/02/13
- Re: ill-advised changes [was key bindings in hideshow.el], Kai Großjohann, 2001/02/14
- Re: ill-advised changes [was key bindings in hideshow.el], Richard Stallman, 2001/02/15
- Re: ill-advised changes [was key bindings in hideshow.el], Richard Stallman, 2001/02/12
- Re: ill-advised changes [was key bindings in hideshow.el], Miles Bader, 2001/02/07
- Re: ill-advised changes [was key bindings in hideshow.el], Stefan Monnier, 2001/02/08
- Re: ill-advised changes [was key bindings in hideshow.el], Richard Stallman, 2001/02/09
- Re: ill-advised changes [was key bindings in hideshow.el], thi, 2001/02/01
- Re: ill-advised changes [was key bindings in hideshow.el], Richard Stallman, 2001/02/03