Masatake YAMATO <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> > Probably a good general convention would be >> > >> > * Capital letters => prefix for other commands >> > >> > * Lower-case letters => commands. >> > >> > That's mainly how Gnus works. >> >> That is a good strategy. > > Do you think we should apply this strategy to all the other bindings? No - see below. But I think we should use that convention, when we add new functionality and run out of keys. > We have already defined many key bindigs which break the new strategy. > > (defvar tla--key-help ??) ; help > (defvar tla--key-mark-prefix ?*) ; other mark related command prefix > (defvar tla--key-apply-from-here ?.) ; apply something from here > (defvar tla--key-get ?>) ; prefix for getting something > (defvar tla--key-mirror ?<) ; mirror > (defvar tla--key-parent ?^) ; visit uppper XXX. e.g. directory > (defvar tla--key-diff ?=) ; one shot
Let's keep them. > (defvar tla--key-add ?a) ; prefix for adding something > (defvar tla--key-diff-prefix ?d) > (defvar tla--key-remove ?r) ; prefix for remove something > (defvar tla--key-toggle ?t) ; prefix for toggle > (defvar tla--key-kill-ring-prefix ?w) We should include the -prefix suffix for that variables. I would keep them also, because they are easier to type > (defvar tla--key-ediff ?e) > (defvar tla--key-refresh ?g) ; update or refresh buffer > (defvar tla--key-mark ?m) ; mark > (defvar tla--key-next ?n) ; next item > (defvar tla--key-previous ?p) ; previous item > (defvar tla--key-quit ?q) ; quit > (defvar tla--key-unmark ?u) ; unmark That are no prefix keys - are they? > (defvar tla--key-buffer-prefix ?B) ; perfix for switching XXX buffer > (defvar tla--key-directory-prefix ?D) > (defvar tla--key-merge-prefix ?M) > (defvar tla--key-revert ?U) > (defvar tla--key-working-copy ?W) ; Affecting on working copy These follow the new (additional) guidelines We can keep or revert the ?U binding We should rename tla--key-working-copy to tla--key-working-copy-prefix > Also we have following rules and conflicts with the new strategy. > > ;; 3. Upper case for commands taking longer time to be executed. > ;; 4. Lowwer case for commands taking shorter time to be executed. I consider that rule as lower priority. It would apply for commands like ?W ?c, ?W ?C -- Stefan.
