RE: [Ilisp-help] Re: bug in xemacs ilisp module

From: Gerd Moellmann on Tuesday, August 12, 2003 10:46 AM
> "Clementson, Bill" <[email protected]> writes:
> 
> > > M-. yes, probably (and I can change that locally here, of
> > > course, so it's not a problem.)  M-, (tags-loop-continue) 
> > > surprised me somewhat.
> > 
> > Why? Isn't next-definition-lisp similar to tags-loop-continue?
> 
> I think next-definition-lisp probably corresponds to C-u M-x find-tag.
> 
> Tags-loop-continue plays a role only with tags-search and 
> tags-query-replace, which are not directly related to 
> find-tag, only insofar as they are looping over the files 
> mentioned in a tags file.

I'm including Bob Rogers in this reply as he is really the "M-." guru :)

Bob, what are your thoughts on the "M-," binding? When I did the key
binding revisions, "M-." & "M-," were optional bindings for
edit-definitions-lisp & next-definition-lisp and a number of people
wanted them to be the default bindings. Do you feel they are close
enough to the conventional usage to remain on "M-."/"M-," or should they
be moved to completely new bindings?