[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Concern about new binding.
From: |
Kévin Le Gouguec |
Subject: |
Re: Concern about new binding. |
Date: |
Thu, 04 Feb 2021 22:00:01 +0100 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/28.0.50 (gnu/linux) |
Lars Ingebrigtsen <larsi@gnus.org> writes:
> The one concern about the `C-x g' binding is that Magit already
> recommends it, but it's unclear to me how many people actually use it,
> and what it's bound to. Is it just a global binding for `M-x magit'?
>
> Presumably Magit users who've bound it to that will continue to do so...
> and then they'll miss the new binding(s) under `C-x g', but I guess
> that's up to each individual user.
To clarify:
- C-x g is bound to magit-status, which is Magit's main entry point,
- Magit includes an autoloaded form that binds C-x g if
- that key sequence is not bound to anything else, and
- magit-status is not already bound, and
- the user hasn't set an explicit "dont-do-that" variable.
(Same goes for two other bindings: C-x M-g for magit-dispatch, and C-c
M-g for magit-file-dispatch.)
So adding a default binding for C-x g *will* change how Magit behaves in
its default configuration.
I struggle to form a solid stance about the change under discussion:
- I wouldn't find it outlandish for Magit to do something similar to
rg.el: provide a function (say magit-enable-default-bindings) that
users can call in their init file to easily setup some bindings under
a prefix (that would default to C-c g).
- I wouldn't mind C-x g (or C-x g g, or C-x g r) being bound to
revert-buffer.
- I find C-x g somewhat awkward as a prefix for buffer commands. Not
really mnemonic, at least.
- Re: Concern about new binding., (continued)
- Re: Concern about new binding., Lars Ingebrigtsen, 2021/02/04
- Re: Concern about new binding., Eli Zaretskii, 2021/02/04
- Re: Concern about new binding., Lars Ingebrigtsen, 2021/02/04
- Re: Concern about new binding., Joost Kremers, 2021/02/04
- Re: Concern about new binding., Lars Ingebrigtsen, 2021/02/04
- Re: Concern about new binding., Basil L. Contovounesios, 2021/02/05
- Re: Concern about new binding., Lars Ingebrigtsen, 2021/02/06
- Re: Concern about new binding.,
Kévin Le Gouguec <=
- Re: Concern about new binding., Thibaut Verron, 2021/02/04
- Re: Concern about new binding., Kévin Le Gouguec, 2021/02/04
- Re: Concern about new binding., Jean Louis, 2021/02/12
- Re: Concern about new binding., Kévin Le Gouguec, 2021/02/12
- Re: Concern about new binding., Gregory Heytings, 2021/02/04
- Re: Concern about new binding., Lars Ingebrigtsen, 2021/02/04
- RE: [External] : Re: Concern about new binding., Drew Adams, 2021/02/04
- Re: [External] : Re: Concern about new binding., Karl Fogel, 2021/02/04
- Re: [External] : Re: Concern about new binding., Jose A. Ortega Ruiz, 2021/02/05
- Re: [External] : Re: Concern about new binding., Karl Fogel, 2021/02/05