Re: org-mode, please change the name of function org-metaleft etc

[Stephen J. Turnbull]

Richard Stallman writes:

 >     Personally I see no reason to have backward-word on M-left too, but I 
 >     guess it is there for historical reason. However it takes up a valuable 
 >     binding.
 > 
 > It is there because of the Emacs convention that word commands use M-.

 >     * Then it was my proposal to change the name of functions like 
 >     org-metaleft. The description of org-metaleft is
 > 
 >        (org-metaleft &optional arg)
 > 
 >        Promote heading or move table column to left.
 >        Calls `org-do-promote' or `org-table-move-column', depending on
 >        context.
 > 
 > Maybe it is valid to consider that a variant of backward-word.

I disagree.  Motion commands move the cursor, whatever "cursor" means
in the context.  They don't change the appearance of the document.

Consider: how many people do you think will type C-h a back RET to
find commands that promote headers or move columns?  I think it will
be much easier to document this as an exception to the rule that if a
key invokes a character command, meta-izing the key invokes an
analogous word command.

(Speaking as an Emacs user, not as an XEmacs developer; I have no idea
what my colleagues will think.)