[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Key bindings proposal
From: |
Tassilo Horn |
Subject: |
Re: Key bindings proposal |
Date: |
Mon, 2 Aug 2010 12:12:47 +0200 |
User-agent: |
KMail/1.13.5 (Linux/2.6.35-rc6-git6; KDE/4.4.5; x86_64; ; ) |
On Saturday 31 July 2010 12:04:50 Uday S Reddy wrote:
> My idea was why can't one type something like "M-x isearch" to get
> this function, instead of "M-x dired-do-isearch" which is too
> long-winded and "M-s a C-s" which is too twisted and unmemorable?
I don't know if that's a good idea. Sounds a bit too DWIMish to me.
What do I do if I want to use normal isearch although there is a
mode-specific isearch implementation?
What I could think of would be the introduction of a namespace concept.
So all basic commands would be declared in the global namespace, and
each mode could have it's own namespace:
(defun dired:isearch (...) ...)
Emacs then could then have a buffer local `namespace' variable per
major-mode (or a list (major minor1 minor2...)?), so that M-x isearch in
dired-mode would actually call dired:isearch. To get the global
function, you could do M-x :isearch.
But such a concept would somehow be orthogonal to [remap ...]. If
there's `dired:isearch', I'd expect that `C-s' invokes `dired:isearch'
in dired-mode without having to explicitly remap...
Just audibly thinking...
Tassilo
- Re: Key bindings proposal,
Tassilo Horn <=
- RE: Key bindings proposal, Uday S Reddy, 2010/08/02
- RE: Key bindings proposal, Stephen J. Turnbull, 2010/08/02
- RE: Key bindings proposal, Uday S Reddy, 2010/08/03
- Re: Key bindings proposal, Juanma Barranquero, 2010/08/03
- Re: Key bindings proposal, Lennart Borgman, 2010/08/03