[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: C-h a vs. M-x apropos
From: |
Charles Sebold |
Subject: |
Re: C-h a vs. M-x apropos |
Date: |
29 Nov 2000 10:26:25 -0600 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.0808 (Gnus v5.8.8) Emacs/20.7 |
It might be more appropriate to post this to gnu.emacs.bug; that is more
likely to catch the eye of the appropriate Emacs developers.
(For what it's worth, I think that your proposal makes sense.)
On 2 Kislev 5761, kgold@watson.ibm.com wrote:
>
> I know that
> C-h a
> shows only functions, while
> M-x apropos
> shows a lot more.
>
> The tutorial explains C-h, and it seems so logical for a newbie to use
> C-h a. I often see posts recommending the more comprehensive M-x
> apropos.
>
> I consider this a bug. Wouldn't it make more sense to have C-h a be
> the same as M-x apropos, so that it does what a new user would expect?
>
> Expert still have M-x apropos-command, which I think is the same as
> C-h a.
>
> Opinions.
--
Charles Sebold
Random Answer to an Emacs Very Frequently Asked Question:
W3 does not show images on Emacsen <v21; use XEmacs or v21.
--
2nd of Kislev, 5761
--
Laser effects, mirrored balls -- John Williams must be rolling around
in his grave.
-- Homer Simpson
The Springfield Connection
[Prev in Thread] |
Current Thread |
[Next in Thread] |
- Re: C-h a vs. M-x apropos,
Charles Sebold <=