Re: [Geiser-users] Overriding the M-[backquote] key binding

[Mark Harig]

>
> >> I wanted to provide an alternative to C-. because that key combo
> >> is not recognized in some terminals (notably, the one i use,
> >> urxvt), and M-` is nicely close to M-TAB in US keyboards. I
> >> kind of like it, but i guess i should be nice and leave the
> >> standard binding alone. Any suggestions for an alternative?
> >>
> >
> > Some possible candidates:
> >
> >   C-c ` (backquote)
> >   C-c TAB
> >   M-S-TAB (M-BACKTAB)
> >   C-TAB
>
> These are good candidates (i would probably favour C-c TAB), but now
> that i've thought of it, i think the right key binding is C-u TAB,
> because geiser-completion--complete-module is a special case of
> completion-at-point (the latter completes on identifiers and module
> names, and both do completion).
>
> What do you think?
>

You might want to look at the Emacs function `complete-symbol', which
accepts a prefix argument.  I would like for Geiser's behavior to be
as consistent as it can be made to be with existing Emacs behavior so
that people are not surprised when using it and so that they don't
have to learn two different behaviors for the same key bindings.  If
you anticipate that `geiser-repl--tab' capabilities might one day more
closely match the behavior of `complete-symbol', then don't bind C-u
TAB to `geiser-completion--complete-module'.

> --
> There are two ways to write error-free programs; only the third one
> works.
>   - Alan Perlis, Epigrams in Programing