RE: Key bindings proposal

[Drew Adams]

> >> But what are technical difficulties of implementing menu 
> >> accelerators?
> >
> > I have no idea.  But apparently Lennart has more or less 
> > succeeded for Windows, and Stephen mentioned that XEmacs
> > added accelerators long ago.
> 
> Does XEmacs bind a key (or key sequences) to access the 
> top-level menu? I mean something like <f10> or Alt-F
> (for File menu)?

No idea.  Maybe Stephen can help you here.

> >> IIUC, Gtk and Windows already support menu accelerators,
> >> and they will also improve navigation in tmm-menubar
> >> (that currently assigns quite random accelerators).
> >
> > [With La Carte what you type directly reflects the menu 
> > names themselves: you complete against a menu path (with
> > substring etc. matching, if you use Icicles or Ido etc.).
> >
> > There is nothing arbitrary about what you type.  This helps you
> > learn and remember the menu organization.  You can drill 
> > down the menu hierarchy progressively, as in TMM (but with
> > meaningful input) or you can match your menu target directly.]
> 
> Tmm is for menu navigation, and La Carte is for menu completion.
> I think they both are useful.

Nope.  La Carte is particularly helpful for menu _navigation_, especially if
used together with Icicles (or Ido or...).

If to navigate means to get around, to orient yourself, to see both the trees
and the forest, to see where you are and where you can go and how to get there,
then La Carte beats TMM everytime for navigation.  You can see all or any part
of the menu tree.  You can change the scope of your view of the tree
incrementally (on the fly).

And what you see are the actual menu names and menu-item names - there is no
artificial legend/key/map to refer to, nothing to learn or forget.  You might
call such a legend "accelerators".  And so they can be, but they require an
indirection and learning, at least at first.  And "at first" is always "now" for
at least some parts of the tree (no one is intimately familiar with the entire
tree).  Even if some simple accelerator-naming rules are used, there is still
some learning and some level of arbitrariness to the map/code.

Simple analogy: Imagine that `C-x C-f' did not use the actual file and directory
names, but required you to use a TMM-like UI where you drilled down from the
root each time using single-key codes (~menu accelerators).  Is that a better UI
for navigation?  I don't think so.

To further improve navigation, add to the usual `C-x C-f' (using file names) the
ability to match also directory names (anywhere along the path) and match using
more powerful patterns (multiple substrings or regexps).  That's analogous to La
Carte (+ Icicles or Ido or... for the fancy matching).

Anyway, Uday's point was about menu accelerators, and my reply was that Emacs
has them (XEmacs, Lennart/Windows) or could have them.  And I support it doing
so.