[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Key bindings proposal

From: Uday S Reddy
Subject: Re: Key bindings proposal
Date: Mon, 2 Aug 2010 12:24:11 +0100

Tassilo Horn writes:

> > My idea was why can't one type something like "M-x isearch" to get
> > this function, instead of "M-x dired-do-isearch" which is too
> > long-winded and "M-s a C-s" which is too twisted and unmemorable?
> I don't know if that's a good idea.  Sounds a bit too DWIMish to me.
> What do I do if I want to use normal isearch although there is a
> mode-specific isearch implementation?

Sorry, I was just giving "M-x isearch" just to illustrate the number
of key presses required.  It could be "M-y isearch" for all we care.
Note that this "isearch" is different from a function called
"isearch".  It is in a different name space.

> Emacs then could then have a buffer local `namespace' variable per
> major-mode (or a list (major minor1 minor2...)?), so that M-x isearch in
> dired-mode would actually call dired:isearch.  To get the global
> function, you could do M-x :isearch.

Thank you.  A scheme like that would feel so 21st century!

> But such a concept would somehow be orthogonal to [remap ...].  If
> there's `dired:isearch', I'd expect that `C-s' invokes `dired:isearch'
> in dired-mode without having to explicitly remap...

Yes, it is orthogonal to the [remap...] idea.

I think we really wouldn't want dired to remap `isearch-forward' to
`dired:isearch', because `isearch-forward' is quite useful in a dired
buffer.  The user can do such remapping for himself if he/she wants


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]