[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: Generalizing find-definition

From: Jorgen Schaefer
Subject: Re: Generalizing find-definition
Date: Sun, 2 Nov 2014 17:29:44 +0100

On Sun, 02 Nov 2014 10:34:28 -0500
Stefan Monnier <address@hidden> wrote:

> > M-* is the standard opposite command for this, so that would be
> > extracted as well.  SLIME and a few other modes re-define M-, to be
> > the opposite for M-. instead for easier navigation.  How do you
> > feel about swapping the definition of M-, and M-* in etags.el?
> That's incompatible with the current M-, binding.
> What would then be the equivalent of the current M-, ?

The idea would be to simply swap M-, and M-*, so M-* would then be
`tags-loop-continue'. As I do not use tags, I do not know how often
that command is used and whether M-* is too inconvenient for this,

> > C-M-. is currently bound to find-tag-regexp.  There is currently no
> > standard functionality in Emacs to find the callers of a symbol at
> > point, which might be nice to put on C-M-. if it is defined at some
> > point for symmetry reasons.
> M-. RET  does "find the callers of a symbol at point", AFAICT.

I must be missing something - how does this work? M-. should jump
to the definition of the symbol at point, then RET should just enter a
newline? And if M-. prompts for a tag, RET will just accept the default?

Apparently, SLIME uses M-_ and M-? for edit-uses (to accomodate
differing keyboard layouts), so that might be a better choice anyhow.

> > Comments?
> I'm all for it,

Thank you. I'll wait for more feedback and will work on this after the
official git transition.


reply via email to

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