[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: Showing all sequences bound to a prefix?
From: |
Drew Adams |
Subject: |
RE: Showing all sequences bound to a prefix? |
Date: |
Wed, 2 Sep 2009 22:32:35 -0700 |
> > The only reason `C-s C-h' does not work (show you the
> > isearch bindings) is because RMS did not want it to work.
> > He prefers that `C-h' break out of isearch
> > (and so initiate global help).
>
> `C-s C-h' does not work the way e.g. `C-x r C-h' works
> because `C-s' is not a prefix key.
The discussion wasn't only about working "the way C-x r C-h works" - the goal
was to see the isearch key bindings. Which is why I explicitly said "does not
work (show you the isearch bindings)".
The "does not work" in this general sense of showing you the isearch bindings is
not "because C-s is not a prefix key". That explains why `C-s' doesn't work the
same as `C-x r', but it doesn't explain why `C-s C-h' doesn't show you isearch
help (bindings).
There is nothing about not being a prefix key that prevents having C-s C-h show
the isearch bindings. As has been said, it can easily be made to work (show the
bindings), by just binding C-h to isearch-mode-help in isearch-mode-map. It's
not a technical problem.
The *reason* that that binding has not been made in Emacs (it has been proposed
several times), and thus the reason that C-s C-h does not work (does not show
you the isearch bindings), is because Richard does not want C-h during isearch
to offer isearch help. He wants it to exit isearch and offer global, top-level
help. It is not a technical reason, but a UI choice.
> `C-s C-h' does not work the way you and I want it to work because
> `C-s' invokes a transient mode (incremental search) with its
> own keymap, which implies that `C-h' must be bound to
> mode-specific command in that keymap,
Yes.
> and RMS prefers a different binding than we do.
Yes.
But there is no relation between the last clause and the first part of the
sentence. The first part explains why C-s C-h doesn't _automatically_ work (the
way C-x r C-h does). But all that matters for the desired result is the second
part: it wasn't implemented because of a UI design choice - the implementation
is then irrelevant.
- Showing all sequences bound to a prefix?, Elena, 2009/09/02
- Re: Showing all sequences bound to a prefix?, Anselm Helbig, 2009/09/02
- RE: Showing all sequences bound to a prefix?, Drew Adams, 2009/09/02
- Message not available
- Re: Showing all sequences bound to a prefix?, Anselm Helbig, 2009/09/02
- RE: Showing all sequences bound to a prefix?, Drew Adams, 2009/09/02
- Re: Showing all sequences bound to a prefix?, Kevin Rodgers, 2009/09/03
- RE: Showing all sequences bound to a prefix?,
Drew Adams <=
- Message not available
- Re: Showing all sequences bound to a prefix?, Anselm Helbig, 2009/09/03
- RE: Showing all sequences bound to a prefix?, Drew Adams, 2009/09/03
- Re: Showing all sequences bound to a prefix?, Bernardo, 2009/09/03
Re: Showing all sequences bound to a prefix?, Peter Dyballa, 2009/09/02
RE: Showing all sequences bound to a prefix?, Drew Adams, 2009/09/02
Message not available