On Thu, Jan 13 2011, Mark Harig wrote: >> >> >> I wanted to provide an alternative to C-. because that key combo >> >> is not recognized in some terminals (notably, the one i use, >> >> urxvt), and M-` is nicely close to M-TAB in US keyboards. I >> >> kind of like it, but i guess i should be nice and leave the >> >> standard binding alone. Any suggestions for an alternative? >> >> >> > >> > Some possible candidates: >> > >> > C-c ` (backquote) >> > C-c TAB >> > M-S-TAB (M-BACKTAB) >> > C-TAB >> >> These are good candidates (i would probably favour C-c TAB), but now >> that i've thought of it, i think the right key binding is C-u TAB, >> because geiser-completion--complete-module is a special case of >> completion-at-point (the latter completes on identifiers and module >> names, and both do completion). >> >> What do you think? >> > > You might want to look at the Emacs function `complete-symbol', which > accepts a prefix argument. I would like for Geiser's behavior to be > as consistent as it can be made to be with existing Emacs behavior so > that people are not surprised when using it and so that they don't > have to learn two different behaviors for the same key bindings. If > you anticipate that `geiser-repl--tab' capabilities might one day more > closely match the behavior of `complete-symbol', then don't bind C-u > TAB to `geiser-completion--complete-module'.
No, i dpn't think so. They actually already differ substantially from complete-symbol. In the first place, completion is done by completion-at-point (which has no C-u variant); moreover, geiser-repl--tab will indent or go to the next error (instead of completing), depending on context. Finally, the alternative behaviour of complete-symbol is performing a lookup in the manual's index, which we have already covered (sort of) by other Geiser commands and, IMHO, was a horrible choice for a C-u binding (it being a substantially different function). If we deemed it useful to provide an "index lookup" command (and here there's the problem of non-texinfo manuals), i would strongly prefer to give it an entirely different key binding, unrelated to completion (it'd belong to the C-c C-d family). Cheers, jao -- You err by thinking simplicity and elegance are mostly cosmetic. Simplicity and elegance are overwhelmingly practical virtues. - William D Clinger, comp.lang.scheme
