Re: tags-loop-continue

[Dmitry Gutov]

On 01/18/2016 05:48 AM, Stefan Monnier wrote:

> Presumably if the user uses both xref and etags-search, then she knows
> about both meanings of M-, and she should hence "intuitively"
> understand that there's a conflict.

Sure she does.

> For that specific case, we could let the user use C-u M-, in order to
> specify which of the two commands to use.

Or, you know, she could just use M-x tags-loop-continue for 
tags-loop-continue.

> Admittedly, I'm not sure this assumption that "the user will intuitively
> know that there's a conflict" holds.

Right.

> Maybe we'd be better off keeping M-, for tags-loop-continue for now and
> use M-* for xref-pop-marker-stack.  It at least has the benefit of
> reducing the differences between 24.5 and 25.1.
> So it can be seen as an intermediate step and in 26.1 we could get rid
> of tags-loop-continue (assuming we figure out how) and move
> xref-pop-marker-stack to M-,

If, to be rid of tags-loop-continue, implementing the two Dired commands 
to use the xref UI is enough, I'll have that soon.

Otherwise, why put ourselves in an inconsistent state (and force users 
to re-learn keys twice)? If we're so worried about backward 
compatibility, let's rip out all new xref bindings and on-obsolete all 
corresponding etags commands.

The interested users would enable some xref-bindings-mode we can add 
without much fuss. The rest will continue to live undisturbed.