Could someone please tell me how this differentiation would best be
implemented?
Does a filename-minibuffer have an extra keymap?
Not at present, but giving it its own keymap is the cleanest
way to do this job.
Making the command check and distinguish the two cases
would work, but i
> Could someone please tell me how this differentiation would best
> be implemented?
> Does a filename-minibuffer have an extra keymap?
> Or should Space be bound to some function that distinguishes the filename
> case from others? (a little awkward...)
AFAIK the normal way to distinguish it is
Could someone please tell me how this differentiation would best be
implemented?
Does a filename-minibuffer have an extra keymap?
Or should Space be bound to some function that distinguishes the
filename case from others? (a little awkward...)
I use this to distinguish file-nam
On 17 Oct 2005, at 05:33, Richard M. Stallman wrote:
Wait a minute!
The change I agreed to was only for file name reading.
The change you proposed would affect all kinds of completion.
I don't want to do that.
Uhh, sorry, that was a misunderstanding then.
If I had to design this from scratch,
> However, I tend to think that the completion definition is not
> essential, and is better for advanced users, while it can screw
> beginners who don't know enough to use C-q SPC. Therefore,
> I have concluded we should redefine SPC.
>
> Would someone like to implement thi
On 13 Aug 2005, at 15:40, Richard M. Stallman wrote:
However, I tend to think that the completion definition is not
essential, and is better for advanced users, while it can screw
beginners who don't know enough to use C-q SPC. Therefore,
I have concluded we should redefine SPC.
Would someone
> Cc: Stefan Monnier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, emacs-devel@gnu.org
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Kim F. Storm)
> Date: Mon, 15 Aug 2005 09:58:36 +0200
>
> >>(define-key minibuffer-completion-map " " 'minibuffer-complete-word)
> >>
> >> in their .emacs.
> >
> > You must be kidding! Since when people
Eli Zaretskii <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> users, so they shouldn't be too annoyed by having to add
>>
>>(define-key minibuffer-completion-map " " 'minibuffer-complete-word)
>>
>> in their .emacs.
>
> You must be kidding! Since when people who are accustomed to
> SPC-completion are automa
Please, let's have an option that would turn off this new behavior and
revert to the old one. (It could be initially off, i.e. the new
behavior could be the default.) I'm sure there are people who will be
pissed off by this change.
The option will be to call define-key.
___
> From: Stefan Monnier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Sun, 14 Aug 2005 02:20:43 -0400
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED], emacs-devel@gnu.org
>
> > Please, let's have an option that would turn off this new behavior and
> > revert to the old one. (It could be initially off, i.e. the new
> > behavior could be th
>> However, I tend to think that the completion definition is not
>> essential, and is better for advanced users, while it can screw
>> beginners who don't know enough to use C-q SPC. Therefore,
>> I have concluded we should redefine SPC.
> Please, let's have an option that would turn off this ne
> From: "Richard M. Stallman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Sat, 13 Aug 2005 10:40:34 -0400
> Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org
>
> However, I tend to think that the completion definition is not
> essential, and is better for advanced users, while it can screw
> beginners who don't know enough to use C-q SPC.
David Kastrup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Please note that TAB is perfectly common for completion.
ok, noted.
> I don't think that our main priority for keybindings should be to
> annoy people into reading the manual. Even though the traditional
> backspace (= C-h) binding on ttys did pretty
Thien-Thi Nguyen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> David Kastrup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> Wrong. Spaces in filenames are no problem to pretty much _any_
>> "unixoid" tool. The only place where they need escaping is in shells;
>> and if you use file name completion, it will be provided automa
David Kastrup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Wrong. Spaces in filenames are no problem to pretty much _any_
> "unixoid" tool. The only place where they need escaping is in shells;
> and if you use file name completion, it will be provided automatically
> (i.e. by bash).
well, i consider the shel
It is not clear a priori which definition of SPC when reading file
names will please more users. Some users like the completion
definition, while others find it gets it the way.
However, I tend to think that the completion definition is not
essential, and is better for advanced users, while it ca
> "David" == David Reitter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
David> I want to stress that the default binding of the
David> space bar should be too insert a space.
Just to be clear, and since I was among the first to reply, I do
agree that the default should be self-insert.
-JimC
___
Thien-Thi Nguyen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> David Reitter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> I respectfully agree for the UI reasons I mentioned before. Why not
>> map 'x' to the completion function? After all, only a few file names
>> have an 'x' in them!
>
> traditionally, spaces in filenames b
> In any case, for the same reason that I think C-SPC is handy for
> inserting a space, I would recommend C-SPC over C-z for
> word-completion (for those who prefer to flip my recommendation
> to leave SPC bound to word completion).
To insert one space in the minibuffer, you can use M-SPC. To ins
David Reitter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I respectfully agree for the UI reasons I mentioned before. Why not
> map 'x' to the completion function? After all, only a few file names
> have an 'x' in them!
traditionally, spaces in filenames break lots of unixoid tools, and were
thus generally shu
> There is lots that is unexpected or new in Emacs, and much of it is
> desirable because it optimizes ease of use - IOW, some Emacs UI
> features are new to people, but they are good. It is better to help
> new users to learn the Emacs way of doing things, _if it is better_,
>
Drew Adams wrote:
C-z is a CUA key for undo and as such is it used in every w32 program.
I have no stock in C-z. But how much do you use undo in the minibuffer?
C-z is a very, very basic editing command and you would expect that to
work anywhere in w32. Just like C-c, C-x and C-v. Cua-mo
On 12 Aug 2005, at 18:50, Drew Adams wrote:
The point is that users are free to get rid of the SPC bindings to
minibuffer-complete-word. I think that David was saying that he
never uses word completion - in that case, just removing the
bindings suffices. Those who do use it have several options,
>For those who want to use something besides SPC for word completion, a
good
>candidate is a left-hand key that is normally a prefix key, and that
doesn't
>have much use in the minibuffer - a key such as C-SPC or C-z
C-z is a CUA key for undo and as such is it used in every w32 pro
For those who want to use something besides SPC for word completion, a good
candidate is a left-hand key that is normally a prefix key, and that doesn't
have much use in the minibuffer - a key such as C-SPC or C-z
C-z is a CUA key for undo and as such is it used in every w32 program.
___
> The point is that users are free to get rid of the SPC bindings to
> minibuffer-complete-word. I think that David was saying that he
> never uses word completion - in that case, just removing the
> bindings suffices. Those who do use it have several options,
> including the al
On 12 Aug 2005, at 16:58, Drew Adams wrote:
The point is that users are free to get rid of the SPC bindings to
minibuffer-complete-word. I think that David was saying that he
never uses
word completion - in that case, just removing the bindings
suffices. Those
who do use it have several opti
> This gives you the convenience of using the spacebar for word
> completion, a
> more convenient way to insert a space (`C-SPC' is almost as
> convenient as `SPC'), and lets you change things easily if you like.
Note that C-SPC (which is often the same as C-@ on text terminals
"Drew Adams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> This gives you the convenience of using the spacebar for word completion, a
> more convenient way to insert a space (`C-SPC' is almost as convenient as
> `SPC'), and lets you change things easily if you like.
Note that C-SPC (which is often the same as C
David> IIRC, people seemed to agree and some said that they wouldn't
David> use minibuffer- complete-word anyways - especially for
David> filenames it seems to be clear that minibuffer-complete-word
David> makes no sense. Inputting a space in a file name, however, is
David> a p
On 12 Aug 2005, at 11:26, James Cloos wrote:
"Lennart" == Lennart Borgman [EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Lennart> And some of those use Tab for file name completion - in the
Lennart> "shell" too ;-)
Yup. It is just hard to even /contemplate/ changing a 19 year old
habit. :)
Well, I use tab to
> "Lennart" == Lennart Borgman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Lennart> And some of those use Tab for file name completion - in the
Lennart> "shell" too ;-)
Yup. It is just hard to even /contemplate/ changing a 19 year old
habit. :)
-JimC
___
Emacs-
James Cloos wrote:
I hope a setting will be left to allow either option. I almost never
have to hit C-q to enter a space in a filename, but regularly
use the spacebar to complete filenames. Of course those not used to
working mostly at shell prompts, and therefore more used to useing
spaces in
> "David" == David Reitter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
David> IIRC, people seemed to agree and some said that they wouldn't
David> use minibuffer- complete-word anyways - especially for
David> filenames it seems to be clear that minibuffer-complete-word
David> makes no sense. Inputting a spac
On June 25, I suggested to map the space bar to the space character
in the minibuffer (instead of minibuffer-complete-word). IIRC, people
seemed to agree and some said that they wouldn't use minibuffer-
complete-word anyways - especially for filenames it seems to be clear
that minibuffer-com
35 matches
Mail list logo
