RE: RE: [Ilisp-devel] Re: Using Emacs as a Lisp IDE

   From: "Clementson, Bill" <[email protected]>
   Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2003 09:04:40 -0600

   From: Bob Rogers on Tuesday, July 15, 2003 9:12 PM
   [snip] 
   > Although I use C-h m frequently, I still find lists of 
   > command bindings useful.  Recall that C-h m lists bindings 
   > alphabetically, with it's own rules for how to alphabetize 
   > prefix combinations, so a cheat sheet that is topically 
   > organized does have some value-added of its own.

   True, however, with the new fsf keybindings, the commands ARE grouped
   topically because of the 3-key keybindings (e.g. -- all the compile
   commands are grouped under "C-c C-k ...", all the eval commands are
   grouped under "C-c C-j ...", etc.

OK, good; I hadn't checked.  Though, of course, that's only one way to
slice it; you could have all the operate-on-region commands, operate-on-
definition commands, operate-on-buffer commands, etc.  Not that doing it
this way would necessarily be an improvement, and C-h m always has the
advantage of being definitively up-to-date.

   [snip]
   > I would like to suggest a topically-organized index of 
   > commands with key bindings.  What I liked about the Web page 
   > is that it showed all three sets of bindings -- original, old 
   > FSF, and your proposal -- in parallel. We'd only need two now 
   > -- "standard" and "traditional" -- but I think it's still a 
   > good idea to document both, especially since switching 
   > bindings modes in order to do "C-h m" is onerous.

   Why is (setq ilisp-*use-fsf-compliant-keybindings* t), "M-x run-ilisp",
   "C-h m" so onerous?

That much of it isn't, but if you're trying to compare both sets
side-by-side, that's only a small part of the picture.  Especially if
you are unfamilar enough with ilisp to discover that calling
ilisp-bindings will rebuild them after resetting
ilisp-*use-fsf-compliant-keybindings*; a newbie would have to start a
second emacs.

   So, I'm not really convinced, but let's consider what the "optimal" way
   of presenting such a listing would be and then decide if the value of
   such a listing would be worth the effort to create it . . .

   All of these would take a few hours work and I'm not convinced that they
   would provide substantially more value than just the "C-h m" listings. 

   Thoughts?

   --
   Bill Clementson

Personally, I would prefer the first, then the second, then the third,
but I can't volunteer to help right now, so it's all your call.  Sorry.

					-- Bob Rogers


-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by: VM Ware
With VMware you can run multiple operating systems on a single machine.
WITHOUT REBOOTING! Mix Linux / Windows / Novell virtual machines at the
same time. Free trial click here: http://www.vmware.com/wl/offer/345/0