Subject: Re: bug#41890: 28.0.50; [PATCH]: Add bindings for project.el

From: Dmitry Gutov <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2020 01:47:53 +0300

On 17.06.2020 00:57, Juri Linkov wrote:
>> +    (define-key map "f" 'project-find-file)
>> +    (define-key map "b" 'project-switch-to-buffer)
>> +    (define-key map "s" 'project-shell)
>> +    (define-key map "d" 'project-dired)
>> +    (define-key map "v" 'project-vc-dir)
>> +    (define-key map "c" 'project-compile)
>> +    (define-key map "e" 'project-eshell)
>> +    (define-key map "p" 'project-switch-project)
>> +    (define-key map "g" 'project-find-regexp)
>> +    (define-key map "r" 'project-query-replace-regexp)
> 
> I think your choice of keys is better than in project-switch-commands.
> Maybe these keys should be copied to project-switch-commands, so it will to be
> in sync with project-prefix-map?

I'll make sure to keep them compatible in the default setup.

> Or is it possible to use project-prefix-map directly in project-switch-commands?
> For example, by using set-transient-map?

We discussed that with Simen in private previously. The current 
implementation is "visual", which is good for discoverability.

I think that kind of limits us, however, to showing only the most 
"essential" commands (think: ones that the user is most likely to use 
right after switching to a different project), and not the whole set.

Or else people will spend more time searching for the key they need to 
press. And they won't use most of the entries in the list anyway.

For that reason also, I just removed the project-shell entry from that 
list because we haven't reached to solid conclusion WRT shell vs eshell, 
and yet it was time to do a release. FWIW, I'm fine with either option, 
but we probably don't need both in the list (we should be fine with 
having both in project-prefix-map, however).

I also forgot to mention that in the commit message (3bff583). Sorry!