[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Suggestion: Mapping of M-g should be goto-line
From: |
David Kastrup |
Subject: |
Re: Suggestion: Mapping of M-g should be goto-line |
Date: |
26 Mar 2004 01:50:08 +0100 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.3.50 |
Stefan Monnier <address@hidden> writes:
> >> >> For what it's worth I always thought C-c C-c was the natural binding
> >> >> for `compile' (or more generally for "here, I'm done editing, now
> >> >> process what I've edited").
> >>
> >> > C-c C-c, however, is used by _many_ modes to mean "do the most common
> >> > thing", including modes where you want to be able to call "compile".
> >>
> >> That might be, but I haven't come across such conflicts in my short life.
> >> What conflicts did you encounter?
>
> > How about AUCTeX? C-c C-c is the central dispatcher, and you
> > might want to use compile for running make-based compilations.
>
> Isn't AUCTeX's central dispatcher supposed to be a "better compile"
> so that you don't need compile for those cases?
Better? It substitutes for most of it, yes, but if you have
processes like weaving a noweb file or other autogenerated stuff,
AUCTeX can be a bit tedious. For example, generating index and
glossary and so on often is done by Makefiles in more complicated
projects.
> At least I can't remember wishing to run `compile' when I was using
> AUCTeX. And it can't be that hard to add `make' to the list of
> AUCTeX actions, can it?
Well, Gnus sends mail and articles with C-c C-c, calc finished
editing, PCL-vcs aborts a job, most shell modes send an interrupt
(don't tell me you never want to use compile from a shell), and so
on. It's not exactly the least used key combination.
In fact, I am now sending this mail with it.
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
- Suggestion: Mapping of M-g should be goto-line, Jari Aalto+mail.emacs, 2004/03/25
- Re: Suggestion: Mapping of M-g should be goto-line, Eli Zaretskii, 2004/03/25
- Re: Suggestion: Mapping of M-g should be goto-line, John Wiegley, 2004/03/25
- Re: Suggestion: Mapping of M-g should be goto-line, Eric Hanchrow, 2004/03/25
- Re: Suggestion: Mapping of M-g should be goto-line, ams, 2004/03/25
- Re: Suggestion: Mapping of M-g should be goto-line, Stefan Monnier, 2004/03/25
- Re: Suggestion: Mapping of M-g should be goto-line, David Kastrup, 2004/03/25
- Re: Suggestion: Mapping of M-g should be goto-line, Stefan Monnier, 2004/03/25
- Re: Suggestion: Mapping of M-g should be goto-line, David Kastrup, 2004/03/25
- Re: Suggestion: Mapping of M-g should be goto-line, Stefan Monnier, 2004/03/25
- Re: Suggestion: Mapping of M-g should be goto-line,
David Kastrup <=
- Re: Suggestion: Mapping of M-g should be goto-line, Stefan Monnier, 2004/03/25
- Re: Suggestion: Mapping of M-g should be goto-line, Kim F. Storm, 2004/03/26
- Re: Suggestion: Mapping of M-g should be goto-line, Juanma Barranquero, 2004/03/26
- Re: Suggestion: Mapping of M-g should be goto-line, Kim F. Storm, 2004/03/26
- Re: Suggestion: Mapping of M-g should be goto-line, Juanma Barranquero, 2004/03/26
- Re: Suggestion: Mapping of M-g should be goto-line, Stefan Monnier, 2004/03/26
- Re: Suggestion: Mapping of M-g should be goto-line, Miles Bader, 2004/03/26
- Re: Suggestion: Mapping of M-g should be goto-line, Juanma Barranquero, 2004/03/27
- Re: Suggestion: Mapping of M-g should be goto-line, Miles Bader, 2004/03/31
- Re: Suggestion: Mapping of M-g should be goto-line, Richard Stallman, 2004/03/27