Re: Suggestion: Mapping of M-g should be goto-line

[Danilo Segan]

Today at 13:27, David Kastrup wrote:

> Danilo Segan <address@hidden> writes:
>
>> For "average joe", we want to make them learn the better way.
>
> No.  We want them to be able to use Emacs productively.  

I thought "better way" is a way of being more productive.  They can
be 'productive' also if they count lines one-by-one, and jump to the
wanted line that way, but it's certainly not a "better way" (except in
some situations where we might proclaim that this will cause them to
review lots of previously written text, so it's "better" ;).

> One does not do this by artificial deficiencies.  That an
> experienced user will often be able to avoid using goto-line my more
> involved procedures does not mean that it does not have its place.
> And in particular, the user will not magically discover useful
> alternatives just because goto-line is hard to use.

Indeed.  That's why useful alternatives need to be better exposed.
If you read my mails, you'd notice that that is what I actually asked 
for.  You may notice that I mentioned that (server-start) would be
better as a default (there're probably security and other
implications, so I'm not saying to take it as is now), and that I
recommended M-g for next-error, and C-x ` for goto-line, because the 
former is (or at least should be, IMO) more useful.

> The way to teach people is to make the information for better and
> more complex alternatives better accessible, not by sabotaging use of
> simpler commands.

Exactly.  Can you please point out where did I suggest anything
remotely similar to what you're implying here?

> I certainly count as a power user with Emacs, and even I use M-x
> goto-line more often than, uh, set-face-whatever.  And "M-g" for
> goto-line is certainly much more mnemonic that "face-whatever".

I never said that face-* belongs there.  I specifically said that it
may be dumped altogether, and some modes (like enriched) could
bring it back.  That still doesn't mean that goto-line is a good
function for that keybinding.  Better, yes, but can we do even 
better still?  That's what I asked, and that's what I'm asking.

As Lupus pointed out, "C-x `" is hard to type on at least French
keyboard, so that's another reason for binding next-error to another
key such as M-g.

[Emacs FAQ already documents some of this in the question "How can
I go to a certain line given its number?" -- perhaps it would need an
update?]

Cheers,
Danilo