[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Concern about new binding.
From: |
Thibaut Verron |
Subject: |
Re: Concern about new binding. |
Date: |
Thu, 4 Feb 2021 22:15:42 +0100 |
2021-02-04 22:00 UTC+01:00, Kévin Le Gouguec <kevin.legouguec@gmail.com>:
> 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).
So to be clear, we would ask hundreds/thousands/whatever of users to
add a change to their init file and possibly change a binding they use
daily, in order to either make room for, or override a binding they
mostly never asked for?
If revert-buffer is to be a new binding (with others or not) is it not
worth trying to find a keymap which does not conflict with one of the
(if not the) most popular of emacs' 3rd party packages?
> - I find C-x g somewhat awkward as a prefix for buffer commands. Not
> really mnemonic, at least.
Whereas it is a good mnemonic for 'G'it.
- Re: Concern about new binding., (continued)
- Re: Concern about new binding., Gregory Heytings, 2021/02/04
- Re: Concern about new binding., Richard Stallman, 2021/02/05
- 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, 2021/02/04
- Re: Concern about new binding.,
Thibaut Verron <=
- 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
- Re: [External] : Re: Concern about new binding., jao, 2021/02/05