GNU bug report logs - #41890
28.0.50; [PATCH]: Add bindings for project.el

Previous Next

Full log

View this message in rfc822 format

From: Sean Whitton <spwhitton <at> spwhitton.name>
To: Juri Linkov <juri <at> linkov.net>
Cc: "Basil L. Contovounesios" <contovob <at> tcd.ie>, 41890 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, "Philip K." <philip <at> warpmail.net>, 42210 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, Dmitry Gutov <dgutov <at> yandex.ru>
Subject: bug#41890: bug#42210: bug#41890: 28.0.50; [PATCH]: Add bindings for project.el
Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2020 14:24:42 -0700

Hello Juri,

On Mon 20 Jul 2020 at 11:41PM +03, Juri Linkov wrote:

>> How about having a project-other-window-commands defcustom for C-x 4 p,
>> and using the entirety of project-prefix-map for C-x 5 p and C-x t t?
>> C-x 4 p can prompt as per my patch, and C-x 5 p and C-x t t could just
>> put a static message in the minibuffer like other-frame-prefix and
>> other-tab-prefix do at present.
>
> Currently there are separate key sequences ‘C-x p’ and ‘C-x p p’
> followed by almost the same list of possibles suffixes, where e.g.
> ‘C-x p f’ visits a file of the current project, whereas ‘C-x p p f’
> prompts for another project and visits its file.
>
> Should the same distinction be preserved in other-place commands?
> Then ‘C-x 4 p f’ will visit a file of the current project in another
> window, whereas ‘C-x 4 p p f’ will prompt for another project and visit
> its file in another window.  The same distinction could apply also to
> ‘C-x 5 p f’ / ‘C-x 5 p p f’ and ‘C-x t p f’ / ‘C-x t p p f’.

Yes, I think so, but I'm not sure how that directly addresses the
suggestion of mine you quote.

-- 
Sean Whitton

Previous Next

GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham, 1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd, 1994-97 Ian Jackson.