Re: Generalizing find-definition

[Dmitry Gutov]

Stefan Monnier <address@hidden> writes:

>> The only benefit would be that M-, is now "go back after M-.", which is
>> what a lot of the packages that redefine M-. do to the key.  Hence the
>> suggestion to swap the two keys, to unify that apparently rather
>> widespread use of M-,.  If Emacs would prefer to keep M-, as is, that is
>> fine with me, too.
>
> I see, so it's compatibility with other packages vs. compatibility with
> etags.el.  Luckily, I think there is no hurry to make this choice.
> So we could poll the users.

I believe ergonomics and frequency of use have also been mentioned. And
if find-tag will provide the "multiple occurences" interface on its own,
there won't be a need for the "next tag" command.

So, +1 from me. You might also take into account that elisp-slime-nav is
a relatively popular package: http://melpa.org/#/elisp-slime-nav