I cannot figure out how to make `q' do what it used to do in Emacs 20, to quit the *Help* buffer.
I use non-nil `pop-up-frames'. I want `q' to do the equivalent of `quit-window'. In my context, that will kill the buffer and delete its frame (thanks to my redefining `delete-window' to DTRT for one-window pop-up-frames). Bye; good riddance. I don't want `q' to iconify the frame, slip it in my back pocket, mail it to me, or do any of the other strange and wonderful things I see advertised in the doc for `view-mode'. How can I get `q' to do something as simple as kill the buffer and delete its window (frame)? BTW, I find the doc string for view-mode difficult to understand wrt the various quitting scenarios. It doesn't help that there are multiple similarly named commands that use synonyms for "quit" as their only distinction: View-quit View-exit View-exit-and-edit View-quit-all View-leave View-kill-and-leave What is this? The variations don't tell us anything in particular about what the functions do - there is no significant difference between the words "quit", "exit", and "leave". Why not also View-split, -give-up, -depart, -drop-out, -relinguish, -throw-in-the-towel, -take-leave, -go-away, -go-out, -get-out, -pull-up-stakes, and -escape? Or are those variants being saved for Emacs 23? Not to mention combinations of these with possible subsequent actions: -and-kill, -and-pass-out, -and-hang-around, -and-go-down-to-the-poo l-hall,... Could this be a sign that something is wrong in the design? Isn't it a bit bizarre for a command to spend so much effort trying to deal with all of the possible ways and contexts in which it might be called (used)? Shouldn't such concerns be for the callers and not the callee? This seems bass ackwards, to me. _______________________________________________ Emacs-devel mailing list Emacs-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-devel
