Subject: bug#41021: [PATCH] New command apropos-function

From: Stefan Kangas <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 02 May 2020 13:35:46 +0200

Eli Zaretskii <[email-masked]> writes:

> OK, but now that you have read it, why do we still need an additional
> command?

This is not about me personally.  I related my experience only as a
description of a likely use-case.

> If you type "M-x apropos TAB", how many commands you see there
> already?

If I count correctly, I see 13 commands:

- apropos
- apropos-command
- apropos-documentation
- apropos-follow
- apropos-library
- apropos-local-value
- apropos-local-variable
- apropos-mode
- apropos-next-symbol
- apropos-previous-symbol
- apropos-user-option
- apropos-value
- apropos-variable

>From looking at that list, I have concluded in the past that there is
no way to search for functions, but only interactive commands.  This
is not a bad first approximation, I think, based on seeing the list of
completions.  Only upon reading the docstring of 'apropos-command'
will you understand that this conclusion was wrong.

But why would you even look there?  The nature of these functions is
to _narrow_ the search in comparison to straight 'apropos'.  It is not
natural to expect that there might be a prefix argument you could use
to _widen_ it again.

In effect I have to say "display only those functions that *are*
commands, only in this case I want to include also all functions that
*are not* commands".

> Is it a good idea to add one more, when we already have the same
> functionality?

Yes, I don't see why not.  We have precedent.

>> I think a new command would help make this feature more
>> discoverable, especially to beginners.
>
> We are being told many beginners don't even want to use the apropos commands.

I would disagree with that statement; on the contrary, apropos is an
important tool /particularly/ to beginners.  I'm sure you agree.

Best regards,
Stefan Kangas