Re: [RP] The `link' command, ported to current CVS

[Jonathan Walther]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

Why don't we just use bind?  What does link save us?
This "link" command just seems like masturbation to me.

On Sat, 20 Oct 2001, Doug Kearns wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 20, 2001 at 05:23:06AM +0200, Gergely Nagy wrote:
> > > > Ah! Yes, silly me. The second line should have read:
> > > > bind C-o link o
> > >
> > > Why not just:
> > >
> > > link C-o o
> > >
> > > That seems much more natural to me, and what I tried before you
> > > corrected the syntax.
> >
> > That would act like bind, duplicating some of it's code, that's why I
> > thought that bind C-o link o is better. IMHO, it is quite
> > straightforward too, for we have only one command which binds stuff to
> > keys, and it binds only commands.
>
> I can see that, it's just that I don't really think it's name reflects
> what it does - it doesn't actually link anything.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.3ia
Charset: noconv

iQCVAwUBO9ELfsK9HT/YfGeBAQFiQgP/VAY69JR/C7y5dAuYSaoIyXxFFtmOK5oN
+SPjj0r+bqLjKBvLZ5i6IJAKRcWe1YMTvatuo9CEalm5EzfW28XpQcOGjZutL0z/
p/m/O3PRv4SNi7AGVOShZ7eFafvx17uTlBObKFxgokRfjyH91U/Us6gNGMkFZKHm
6yywElj51Sc=
=hoFI
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----