[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: next-error-last-buffer
From: |
Richard Stallman |
Subject: |
Re: next-error-last-buffer |
Date: |
Wed, 02 Jun 2004 13:36:40 -0400 |
> next-error-no-visit: M-n
>
> Let's call that forward-error-message.
>
> previous-error-no-visit: M-p
>
> Let's call that backward-error-message.
Wouldn't that be confusing? We already have the prefixing adjectives
"next" and "previous" established, now users have to also remember
"forward" and "backward."
I think people will understand them. These names follow tradition,
make sense, and are clean; the others are clumsy.
I also find the forward-/backward- prefixes inappropriate in this
case; to me they indicate movement in the current buffer or some
other "closed context".
That's exactly what these commands are: they move forward and back in
the current buffer, moving by error messages. Here's what they were
proposed to replace:
next-error-no-visit: M-n
compilation-mode-map
M-n compilation-next-error
diff-mode-shared-map
M-n diff-hunk-next
occur-mode-map
M-n occur-next
- Re: next-error-last-buffer, Ted Zlatanov, 2004/06/01
- Re: next-error-last-buffer, Ted Zlatanov, 2004/06/01
- Re: next-error-last-buffer, Richard Stallman, 2004/06/02
- Re: next-error-last-buffer, Ted Zlatanov, 2004/06/03
- Re: next-error-last-buffer, Richard Stallman, 2004/06/03
- Re: next-error-last-buffer, Ted Zlatanov, 2004/06/07
- Re: next-error-last-buffer, Richard Stallman, 2004/06/08
- Re: next-error-last-buffer, Ted Zlatanov, 2004/06/30