[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: no need for where-is to list losing completions
|
From: |
Eli Zaretskii |
|
Subject: |
Re: no need for where-is to list losing completions |
|
Date: |
Sun, 21 Jan 2001 13:20:12 +0200 (IST) |
On 21 Jan 2001, Dan Jacobson wrote:
> May I suggest that the list of completions for C-h w (where-is) be
> limited to only those commands that have bindings.
This is against the purpose of "C-h w". If you remove commands that
aren't bound, users might think that an unbound command doesn't exist.