Luke Gorrie luke@bluetail.com writes:
Now we've also added a command that goes to the next definition (like M-, in etags) on `C-M-.'.
C-M-. is currently broken. My fault; will fix.
Hmm, well, etags has C-M-. as `find-tag-regexp'. Conceivably we could do a command like that too.
If there only where a regexp library on the CL side :-)
Whaddayareckon, can we push through a rebellion against etags bindings, or is resistance futile (and annoying)?
I like our current bindings. I think I need "pop definition" (M-,) more often than the "find next" command and "pop definition" should be on the more convenient key. After all, many symbols have only one definition. We also show all definitions in an extra buffer if there are more than one; this makes the "find next" command less important.
OTOH, if we keep the current bindings we get discussions like this one. I'd say we add optional etags compatibility stuff, but make our bindings the default.
Helmut.