hi,
why do we bind M-* to slime-pop-find-definition-stack in slime-mode-map? we already bind it to M-, and M-* has a usefull global binding (tags-loop-continue) which doesn't do something similar to slime-pop-find-definition-stack.
Marco Baringer mb@bese.it writes:
why do we bind M-* to slime-pop-find-definition-stack in slime-mode-map? we already bind it to M-, and M-* has a usefull global binding (tags-loop-continue) which doesn't do something similar to slime-pop-find-definition-stack.
Actually, at least in GNU Emacs 21 and also in XEmacs 21, M-* is `pop-tag-mark', and M-, is `tags-loop-continue'. That's why we shadow M-* with the similar function `slime-pop-find-definition-stack'; the SLIME binding for M-, is a historical accident, I think. Thus, I propose to remove the binding for M-,.
Cheers,
For what its worth, I find the current binding for M-, extremely useful - having it right next to M-. is very intuitive (I didn't even know about the M-* binding). It also corresponds to bindings in the usual C/C++ modes.
In the course of looking up M-* in the document I noticed it wasn't there. Actually, it was there but rendered incorrectly: I discovered that , doesn't escape commas in texinfo, and you have to use something like @comma{} instead.
Will I was at it, I also made sure there were placeholders for all the as yet undocumented functions in the function index, but commented them out so they don't appear in the index. Those who are in a better position to document these functions can do so as time permits, add the appropriate anchor for the index link and uncomment the function in the index. It serves as a useful reminder of what functions still need to be documented.
I committed the modified doc/slime.texi into CVS.
Regards,
-Jeff
Jeffrey Cunningham jeffrey@cunningham.net writes:
For what its worth, I find the current binding for M-, extremely useful - having it right next to M-. is very intuitive (I didn't even know about the M-* binding). It also corresponds to bindings in the usual C/C++ modes.
personally i agree, but i think in general we should stick as close to emacs' standard bindings as possibile. people can always rebind keys to their heart's content.
* Marco Baringer [2007-01-11 17:22+0100] writes:
personally i agree, but i think in general we should stick as close to emacs' standard bindings as possibile. people can always rebind keys to their heart's content.
It was a very conscuios decision to use M-, instead of M-*. We discussed that at that time and M-* was just bound for people who are used to M-*. So if you want to remove a binding, remove M-*.
Helmut.
Helmut Eller heller@common-lisp.net writes:
- Marco Baringer [2007-01-11 17:22+0100] writes:
personally i agree, but i think in general we should stick as close to emacs' standard bindings as possibile. people can always rebind keys to their heart's content.
It was a very conscuios decision to use M-, instead of M-*. We discussed that at that time and M-* was just bound for people who are used to M-*. So if you want to remove a binding, remove M-*.
Please, there is absolutely no point in removing M-*.
Can people please restore this binding?
It was a very conscuios decision to use M-, instead of M-*. We discussed that at that time and M-* was just bound for people who are used to M-*. So if you want to remove a binding, remove M-*.
Please, there is absolutely no point in removing M-*.
Can people please restore this binding?
mutter, mutter, no dictator, mutter, mutter... :)
something like this in your init.el might help:
(let ((key "\M-*") (command 'slime-pop-find-definition-stack)) (define-key slime-mode-map key command) (define-key sldb-mode-map key command))
-
Attila Lendvai -
Helmut Eller -
Jeffrey Cunningham -
Marco Baringer -
Matthias Koeppe