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

[Mark Harig]

> No, i dpn't think so. They actually already differ substantially from
> complete-symbol. In the first place, completion is done by
> completion-at-point (which has no C-u variant); moreover,
> geiser-repl--tab will indent or go to the next error (instead of
> completing), depending on context.

It might be appropriate to change the name of `geiser-repl--tab' to
`geiser-repl-dwim-tab', given its three-features behavior (to be
expanded to four?).

> Finally, the alternative behaviour of
> complete-symbol is performing a lookup in the manual's index, which we
> have already covered (sort of) by other Geiser commands and, IMHO, 
was a
> horrible choice for a C-u binding (it being a substantially different
> function). If we deemed it useful to provide an "index lookup" command
> (and here there's the problem of non-texinfo manuals), i would 
strongly
> prefer to give it an entirely different key binding, unrelated to
> completion (it'd belong to the C-c C-d family).

Correction to my earlier message: I had been thinking that minor-mode
key bindings should be used, but this is "REPL (major) mode," not
"Scheme (major) mode with Geiser (minor) mode."  So, the C-c plus
punctuation character would not be appropriate.

> --
> You err by thinking simplicity and elegance are mostly
> cosmetic.  Simplicity and elegance are overwhelmingly
> practical virtues.
>   - William D Clinger, comp.lang.scheme