[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Suggestion: Mapping of M-g should be goto-line
From: |
Stefan Monnier |
Subject: |
Re: Suggestion: Mapping of M-g should be goto-line |
Date: |
26 Mar 2004 09:25:49 -0500 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.3.50 |
>> > Try
>> > M-x recursive-edit RET C-h k C-c C-c
>> > =>
>> > C-c C-c runs the command exit-recursive-edit
Exactly my point: yet another example of C-c C-c used for "I'm done editing,
now process it". In the context of recursive-edit, of course this should
not be `compile'.
It seems people don't understand what I really want to say, so here's
another take on it:
1 - let's create a new command
(defvar done-editing-now-do-it-function 'compile)
(defun done-editing-now-do-it ()
"Do what needs to be done with what you've just finished editing."
(interactive)
(call-interactively done-editing-now-do-it-function))
(global-set-key "\C-c\C-c" 'done-editing-now-do-it)
2 - let's optimize it away:
(global-set-key "\C-c\C-c" 'compile)
Notice it's only an optimization that relies on the fact that the
binding can trivially be overridden by local maps and on the fact that
done-editing-now-do-it did not do anything more than call the
done-editing-now-do-it-function function. The intention is still that
major modes (or recursive-edit or minor-modes or whatever else shows up)
should rebind it to something more appropriate if applicable.
In elisp-mode, I've rebound it to byte-compile-file.
I.e. this is not "a standard binding for `compile'", but "a formalization
of what C-c C-c is expected to do".
Stefan
- Re: Suggestion: Mapping of M-g should be goto-line, (continued)
- Re: Suggestion: Mapping of M-g should be goto-line, David Kastrup, 2004/03/25
- Re: Suggestion: Mapping of M-g should be goto-line, Stefan Monnier, 2004/03/25
- Re: Suggestion: Mapping of M-g should be goto-line, David Kastrup, 2004/03/25
- Re: Suggestion: Mapping of M-g should be goto-line, Stefan Monnier, 2004/03/25
- Re: Suggestion: Mapping of M-g should be goto-line, David Kastrup, 2004/03/25
- Re: Suggestion: Mapping of M-g should be goto-line, Stefan Monnier, 2004/03/25
- Re: Suggestion: Mapping of M-g should be goto-line, Kim F. Storm, 2004/03/26
- Re: Suggestion: Mapping of M-g should be goto-line, Juanma Barranquero, 2004/03/26
- Re: Suggestion: Mapping of M-g should be goto-line, Kim F. Storm, 2004/03/26
- Re: Suggestion: Mapping of M-g should be goto-line, Juanma Barranquero, 2004/03/26
- Re: Suggestion: Mapping of M-g should be goto-line,
Stefan Monnier <=
- Re: Suggestion: Mapping of M-g should be goto-line, Miles Bader, 2004/03/26
- Re: Suggestion: Mapping of M-g should be goto-line, Juanma Barranquero, 2004/03/27
- Re: Suggestion: Mapping of M-g should be goto-line, Miles Bader, 2004/03/31
- Re: Suggestion: Mapping of M-g should be goto-line, Richard Stallman, 2004/03/27
- Re: Suggestion: Mapping of M-g should be goto-line, Per Abrahamsen, 2004/03/26
- Re: Suggestion: Mapping of M-g should be goto-line, Alan Mackenzie, 2004/03/26
- Re: Suggestion: Mapping of M-g should be goto-line, Per Abrahamsen, 2004/03/26
- Re: Suggestion: Mapping of M-g should be goto-line, David Kastrup, 2004/03/26
Re: Suggestion: Mapping of M-g should be goto-line, Stefan Monnier, 2004/03/25