RE: Ilisp key binding changes - Please Review

From: Bob Rogers on Tuesday, April 29, 2003 10:14 AM
[snip]
> The choice of mnemonic binding depends on whether you want to think of
> compile-region-lisp as a compile command, or as a region 
> command.  I had
> thought of it as a region command, but I'm too lazy to 
> propose a similar
> alternative -- and I'm sure your proposal is at least as good as
> anything I could come up with that used only a single key after the
> "C-c".
> 
>    But, just for grins, here's an alternative that binds each 
> command to
> a sequence of three keys:
> 
>    "C-c C-k f" compile-file-lisp 
>    "C-c C-k b" ilisp-compile-buffer 
>    "C-c C-k r" compile-region-lisp
>    "C-c C-k D" compile-defun-and-go-lisp
>    "C-c C-k R" compile-region-and-go-lisp 
> 
> In all of these, the extra key allows "C-k" to be mnemonic 
> for "compile"
> For consistency, compile-defun-lisp could also be bound to 
> "C-c C-k d",
> but I think it should still be available as "C-c C-c" in 
> lisp-mode only.
> Similar changes could be made for the "eval-*" commands:
> 
>    "C-c C-e d" eval-defun-lisp
>    "C-c C-e D" eval-defun-and-go-lisp
>    "C-c C-e n" eval-next-sexp-lisp
>    "C-c C-e N" eval-next-sexp-and-go-lisp
>    "C-c C-e r" eval-region-lisp
>    "C-c C-e R" eval-region-and-go-lisp
> 
> None of these commands (compile or eval) is really useful in 
> ilisp-mode;
> certainly, the "and-go" forms would be redundant.
> 
>    Happily, eval-changes-lisp and compile-changes-lisp 
> already fit this
> pattern.  Unhappily, they put the "noun key" before the "verb key",
> which is the reverse of the "C-c C-e" and "C-c C-k" prefixes. 
>  Not sure
> if it would be worth tweaking the "changes" bindings, though 
> "C-c 8" is
> pretty poor for mnemonic value . . .
> 
>    Of course, if you are not persuaded, and nobody else 
> chimes in to say
> that they think this is a much better idea, you are probably 
> better off
> implementing what you have so that people (including me) can 
> try it out.
> And if anybody (including me) has a better idea, we can always suggest
> them as changes to your scheme.

Hey, I really like your suggested approach!  

It is almost immediately useable by newbies after just a cursory scan of 
the bindings and it allows for a consistent set of mnemonic key bindings.
The only real con is that it requires an extra key press but I think 
this would be offset by the greater consistency.

Incidentally, the "C-c C-e <letter>" binding doesn't work for the eval
functions because "C-c C-e" is already bound to comint-show-maximum-output
in lisp mode. However, your suggested approach is valid and I would 
probably bind the eval functions to a "C-c C-j <letter>" binding as "j"
is a convenient, easily accessible key and the eval functions are used a 
lot.

[snip]
>>> I am a little concerned that many bindings require 
>>> C-S- and M-S-
>>> combinations for the second character.  These seem more 
>>> likely to make
>>> peoples' hands hurt than three-character sequences where each 
>>> character
>>> requires at most one modifier, with preference given to 
>>> sequences that
>>> tend to use the same modifier combinations.  But maybe 
>>> I'm alone on
>>> this; I know I've mentioned this before, and nobody 
>>> piped up to agree.
>> 
>>    This bothered me a bit too. I tried to keep the most 
>> frequently used 
>>    commands on lower-shift key bindings. This wasn't always 
>> possible because
>>    comint mode grabs a lot of the available lower case 
>> bindings already.
> 
> Yes, and many of those bindings are useful, which is why I agree that
> leaving them in place is a win.
> 
>    On the other hand (and here I'm playing devil's advocate), it would
> be reasonable to maintain that Lisp sessions are sufficiently 
> different
> from shells, and the fact that ilisp uses comint-mode is now something
> of a historical accident, so ilisp is justified in rebinding 
> such things
> as "C-c C-w", "C-c C-d", etc., that only make sense for a shell.  I'm
> sure that's the original reasoning behind some of the 
> rebindings.  (I'll
> bet other rebindings are due to the fact that comint-mode added them
> after ilisp.)

I've received enough emails from people saying "please don't step on
existing emacs and comint bindings" that I would be very hesitant to 
intentionally overlap existing bindings. If we adopt the alternative 
binding suggestion that you made above, this shouldn't be an issue.

[snip]
>>    Thank you very much for your comments and suggestions. 
>> Having someone
>>    propose some alternatives is good because it makes me re-think some
>>    of my assumptions.
> I know what you mean.  Even if all of your critics are clueless,
> responding to each one still forces extra brain cells to kick in.  ;-}

And, occasionally, the critics actually come up with some good ideas! ;-)

I'll update the html page showing an alternative proposal that is based
on your suggestion. Let's get some feedback on it - my first take on it 
is that I like it more, but I'd like some other feedback too. I'll send
out another notice once I've updated the web page.

Thanks for the suggestions/comments.

- Bill


-------------------------------------------------------
This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek
Welcome to geek heaven.
http://thinkgeek.com/sf