[Top][All Lists]

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

RE: Why all the Alt bindings by default?

From: Drew Adams
Subject: RE: Why all the Alt bindings by default?
Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2011 09:06:09 -0700

> The bindings are listed in order of precedence.

Interesting.  I wasn't aware of that.  There is nothing in the buffer that tells
users that (bug #1), nothing in the doc string of `describe-bindings' about it
either (bug #2), nothing in (emacs) `Help Summary' or (emacs) `Misc Help' either
(bug #3, bug #4), and nothing in (elisp) `Scanning Keymaps' either (bug #6).

So is this by design or accident?  It's apparently documented _nowhere_.

Even if by design, perhaps the design needs to be revisited.  We did something
similar (at my request) a few years back for `C-h m', when we moved the
minor-mode stuff after the major-mode description.  Prior to that, like key
translation listings here, the minor-mode stuff was _in the way_.

IF we decide to keep showing key translations in `C-h b', then we should get
them out of the way, one way or another.

It would be fine if, in the new intro text that you will please add to explain
that bindings are listed in order of precedence, you also say that key
translations (which are not bindings) are listed after all of the bindings, even
though they take precedence.

> > Currently, they are at the _start_ of the buffer, in the way.
> Which is the correct place.

"Correct"?  It's probably correct that that the correct place is _nowhere_ in a
listing of key bindings (Stefan's suggestion).  If they do belong there then
they certainly don't belong at the beginning of the buffer.

Another alternative would be to show them only on demand, e.g. using a
particular prefix arg.  The point is that they should not be front-and-center,
in the way of seeing the key bindings.

reply via email to

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