From: Clementson, B. <Bil...@jd...> - 2003-04-22 03:13:29
|
From: Bob Rogers on Monday, April 21, 2003 8:14 PM [snipped bits where we agreed] >> One alternative might be to have "C-c M-." and "C-c M-," >> as the FSF bindings >> but to have a variable >> "ilisp-*use-standard-keybindings-for-definitions*" >> that allows the user to override the FSF bindings and use >> "M-." and "M-," instead . . . > > That is reasonable, I think. However, I think there are far too many > keybinding-related variables to begin with. How about using > > (eq ilisp-*use-fsf-compliant-keybindings* 'strict) > > to select "C-c M-." and "C-c M-," instead? Personally, I > would probably > set the new default to "t" rather than "strict", but have no strong > opinions either way. Sounds like a good alternative to me (and doesn't require a new ilisp variable) >> While we're on the subject of ilisp keybindings, I thought >> I should bring up >> a broader topic. A number of people on comp.lang.lisp and >> in private emails >> have suggested a complete rehaul of the fsf keybindings to >> eliminate the >> cases where they "step on" comint mode bindings and to >> make them more >> consistent. What do others think? > > I for one would appreciate an overhaul. I use M-x shell instead of > xterm's (and even wrote a M-x ssh), and in fact reinstate some of the > commands shadowed by newer ilisp-mode-map bindings (e.g. > C-M-l) so that > Lisp interaction buffers behave more like shell-mode. [snip] > Again, barring howls of outrage on this list, I would assume that the > ilisp community would be more willing to tolerate such > changes than most > emacs users, especially if the changes were well thought-out and well > documented. Paradoxically, the wider you cast your net, the easier it > should be to show that you are Doing The Right Thing, which should be > sufficient. > > Of course, I can only speak for myself. As insurance, you > might want > to post your redesign via the same channels you sent your original > query. I'll bet concrete lists of key bindings will generate more > responses. Ok, I've posted a similar question now to c.l.l. as well. Assuming there is no major opposition, I will address the broader set of FSF keybinding issues rather than focus only on the new bindings. > It's not a small job, though. Out of curiousity, I snarfed the > variation of the "traditional" ilisp-mode-map bindings that I > use out of > C-h m, and massaged them for sorting; the result is appended. > Here are > the totals: > > 64 lisp (incl. cltl2-lookup, hyperspec-lookup, complete) > 24 comint > 12 ild > 1 misc (alternate backward-kill-word binding) > === > 101 total > > Hope this is useful (rather than tedious, or daunting), It was useful but I had already done a similar quick survey. Once I get some further responses, I'll send out a complete listing of ilisp fsf keybindings grouped into 3 categories: 1. New FSF keybindings (essentially the list I posted previously (with some revisions) 2. Existing keybindings that need to be changed (with a reason for the change and a suggested keybinding). Changes will be suggested for keybindings that "step on" comint (or other keybindings) without providing equivalent functionality. 3. Existing FSF keybindings that don't need to be changed (so that people can point out potential problems that I might have missed) Thanks, -- Bill Clementson |