On Fri, Aug 19, 2016 at 1:29 AM Richard Stallman <
address@hidden> wrote:
That name is logical, but inconvenient: you have to type s h e SPC SPC c d.
'shell-this-directory' is almost as inconvenient: s h e SPC SPC t.
I believe that keeping package name as first part of the command improves discoverability. If I were to look into what all commands are available related to 'shell', I can easily come across 'shell-cd' or 'shell-foo' with packages like ido or counsel or helm and start using it. But if the command is 'cd-shell', that reduces the discoverability (unless you have the fuzzy search enabled in packages like ido).
I would just bind 'shell-cd' to a binding (like "C-c d s" maybe? :) ), if I find myself using it very often. But naming it 'cd-shell' just so that it comes up with lesser chars to type for guessing the right command doesn't seem like a permanent solution to access that command quickly. What if tomorrow we have more commands starting with 'cds'? Again, having 'cd-shell' show up as the best match for 'c d s' is very subjective. It is very useful to people using 'cd-shell' or 'shell-cd' regularly, but probably not to others.
What do you think?