Re: master fe939b3 1/2: Fix reference to `tags-loop-continue' in doc string

[Dmitry Gutov]

On 8/5/19 6:05 PM, Drew Adams wrote:

> I would say "also useful" and "differently useful",
> or "sometimes more useful" - not "more useful".
>
> Is `occur' (show all matches, let you get directly
> to any, in any order) more useful than incremental
> search?

The question was about xref, not general Emacs usage. Since M-. is bound 
to xref-find-definitions, M-, should do the action that makes most sense 
for the former.

> But I also recognize that a single tool - even a
> good, flexible one - is not necessarily the best
> tool for all jobs.

That is true, and we provide different commands and ways of interaction. 
But the number of useful, short key bindings is limited, and we have to 
make a good, consistent choices in that regard that would benefit the 
most users.

> But why is it too late to rehabilitate the
> `do the next thing' commands and their doc,
> and give them key bindings once again?  Why
> promote only `xref', essentially deprecating
> the others?

I'm not seeing a specific proposal, like which keys exactly would you 
want to use. Maybe make a bug report specifically about that.

IIRC pop-tag-mark was bound to 'M-*'? It seems unused.

> Why not promote (document, bind, etc.) both
> approaches?  We don't denigrate Isearch just
> because we have `occur'.

Because bindings loads of different commands to many different, long 
keybindings is not as useful as some people seem to think.

> I'm convinced of the utility of `xref' (and
> I always was).  I'm not convinced that the
> existing commands/keys had to be sacrificed
> in order to promote what you see as "more
> useful" (even perhaps as best for all uses).

I wouldn't say that any commands were sacrificed.