GNU bug report logs - #24577
25.1; Proposal to improve C-u C-h c behavior

Previous Next

To add a comment to this bug, you must first unarchive it, by sending
a message to control AT debbugs.gnu.org, with unarchive 24577 in the body.
You can then email your comments to 24577 AT debbugs.gnu.org in the normal way.

Toggle the display of automated, internal messages from the tracker.

Message #5 received at submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Dmitri Paduchikh <dpaduchikh <at> gmail.com>
To: bug-gnu-emacs <at> gnu.org
Subject: 25.1; Proposal to improve C-u C-h c behavior
Date: Sat, 01 Oct 2016 09:59:08 +0500

Hello,

C-u C-h c does not work in read-only buffers. And even if the buffer is
writable it's rarely an appropriate place to insert info about key
bindings. I think it would be better if C-u C-h c placed its output into
kill ring and printed it in the echo area instead of the current
behavior.

Regards,
Dmitri Paduchikh

Message #8 received at 24577 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Ivan Shmakov <ivan <at> siamics.net>
To: 24577 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Cc: Dmitri Paduchikh <dpaduchikh <at> gmail.com>
Subject: Re: bug#24577: 25.1; Proposal to improve C-u C-h c behavior
Date: Sat, 01 Oct 2016 05:40:40 +0000

>>>>> Dmitri Paduchikh <dpaduchikh <at> gmail.com> writes:

 > C-u C-h c does not work in read-only buffers.  And even if the buffer
 > is writable it's rarely an appropriate place to insert info about key
 > bindings.  I think it would be better if C-u C-h c placed its output
 > into kill ring and printed it in the echo area instead of the current
 > behavior.

	I believe that this behavior is a common idiom in Emacs.
	For example, M-! date RET shows the current date and time in
	echo area, while C-u M-! date RET inserts it at point – with
	both actions making sense depending on the situation.

	I guess C-u C-h c behavior is mainly useful when writing about
	Emacs itself (including writing bug reports, or conversing on
	IRC, etc.), but I can easily see it being handy nevertheless.

	Also, for read-only buffers, one can use C-h c without C-u, and
	then copy the result from the *Messages* buffer.

	On the other hand, I’m not aware of any of Emacs commands adding
	the result of some operation directly to the kill ring.

-- 
FSF associate member #7257  http://am-1.org/~ivan/      … 3013 B6A0 230E 334A

Message #11 received at 24577 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
To: Ivan Shmakov <ivan <at> siamics.net>
Cc: dpaduchikh <at> gmail.com, 24577 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#24577: 25.1; Proposal to improve C-u C-h c behavior
Date: Sat, 01 Oct 2016 09:54:38 +0300

> From: Ivan Shmakov <ivan <at> siamics.net>
> Date: Sat, 01 Oct 2016 05:40:40 +0000
> Cc: Dmitri Paduchikh <dpaduchikh <at> gmail.com>
> 
> >>>>> Dmitri Paduchikh <dpaduchikh <at> gmail.com> writes:
> 
>  > C-u C-h c does not work in read-only buffers.  And even if the buffer
>  > is writable it's rarely an appropriate place to insert info about key
>  > bindings.  I think it would be better if C-u C-h c placed its output
>  > into kill ring and printed it in the echo area instead of the current
>  > behavior.
> 
> 	I believe that this behavior is a common idiom in Emacs.
> 	For example, M-! date RET shows the current date and time in
> 	echo area, while C-u M-! date RET inserts it at point – with
> 	both actions making sense depending on the situation.
> 
> 	I guess C-u C-h c behavior is mainly useful when writing about
> 	Emacs itself (including writing bug reports, or conversing on
> 	IRC, etc.), but I can easily see it being handy nevertheless.
> 
> 	Also, for read-only buffers, one can use C-h c without C-u, and
> 	then copy the result from the *Messages* buffer.
> 
> 	On the other hand, I’m not aware of any of Emacs commands adding
> 	the result of some operation directly to the kill ring.

100% agreement.

Message #14 received at 24577 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Andreas Schwab <schwab <at> linux-m68k.org>
To: Ivan Shmakov <ivan <at> siamics.net>
Cc: Dmitri Paduchikh <dpaduchikh <at> gmail.com>, 24577 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#24577: 25.1; Proposal to improve C-u C-h c behavior
Date: Sat, 01 Oct 2016 09:55:38 +0200

On Okt 01 2016, Ivan Shmakov <ivan <at> siamics.net> wrote:

> 	Also, for read-only buffers, one can use C-h c without C-u, and
> 	then copy the result from the *Messages* buffer.

Or temporarily switch to a writable buffer.

Andreas.

-- 
Andreas Schwab, schwab <at> linux-m68k.org
GPG Key fingerprint = 58CA 54C7 6D53 942B 1756  01D3 44D5 214B 8276 4ED5
"And now for something completely different."

Message #17 received at 24577 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Dmitri Paduchikh <dpaduchikh <at> gmail.com>
To: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
Cc: 24577 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, Ivan Shmakov <ivan <at> siamics.net>
Subject: Re: bug#24577: 25.1; Proposal to improve C-u C-h c behavior
Date: Sat, 01 Oct 2016 13:38:45 +0500

Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org> wrote:

>> From: Ivan Shmakov <ivan <at> siamics.net>
>> Date: Sat, 01 Oct 2016 05:40:40 +0000
>> Cc: Dmitri Paduchikh <dpaduchikh <at> gmail.com>
>> 
>> >>>>> Dmitri Paduchikh <dpaduchikh <at> gmail.com> writes:
>> 
>>  > C-u C-h c does not work in read-only buffers.  And even if the buffer
>>  > is writable it's rarely an appropriate place to insert info about key
>>  > bindings.  I think it would be better if C-u C-h c placed its output
>>  > into kill ring and printed it in the echo area instead of the current
>>  > behavior.
>> 
>>       I believe that this behavior is a common idiom in Emacs.
>>       For example, M-! date RET shows the current date and time in
>>       echo area, while C-u M-! date RET inserts it at point – with
>>       both actions making sense depending on the situation.

There is a difference here. You are calling C-u M-! at the place where
you want its output, whereas C-u C-h c has to be called at the place
when the key is defined, and that place is rarely the same where you
want to insert the key description.

>>       I guess C-u C-h c behavior is mainly useful when writing about
>>       Emacs itself (including writing bug reports, or conversing on
>>       IRC, etc.), but I can easily see it being handy nevertheless.

I agree that main use of C-u C-h c is when writing about Emacs itself,
but the part about being handy nevertheless I didn't understand. I
didn't propose to remove it, just make it more handy.

>>       Also, for read-only buffers, one can use C-h c without C-u, and
>>       then copy the result from the *Messages* buffer.

In other words, you are suggesting not to use C-u C-h c and simply work
around the issue. But since you prefer not to use it, then you won't
suffer from the behavior change.

>>       On the other hand, I’m not aware of any of Emacs commands adding
>>       the result of some operation directly to the kill ring.

I have seen the proposed behavior in emacs-w3m where w3m-print-this-url
behaves in this manner. It is convenient. Please note that message in
the echo area may contain the indication that the description has been
copied into kill ring. I think this would remove any possible confusion.

EZ> 100% agreement.

Regards,
Dmitri Paduchikh

Message #20 received at 24577 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
To: Dmitri Paduchikh <dpaduchikh <at> gmail.com>
Cc: 24577 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, ivan <at> siamics.net
Subject: Re: bug#24577: 25.1; Proposal to improve C-u C-h c behavior
Date: Sat, 01 Oct 2016 12:09:20 +0300

> From: Dmitri Paduchikh <dpaduchikh <at> gmail.com>
> Cc: Ivan Shmakov <ivan <at> siamics.net>,  24577 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
> Date: Sat, 01 Oct 2016 13:38:45 +0500
> 
> >>       On the other hand, I’m not aware of any of Emacs commands adding
> >>       the result of some operation directly to the kill ring.
> 
> I have seen the proposed behavior in emacs-w3m where w3m-print-this-url
> behaves in this manner.

Then perhaps we could have both behaviors, one after a single "C-u",
the other after two "C-u"s.

Message #23 received at 24577 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Dmitri Paduchikh <dpaduchikh <at> gmail.com>
To: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
Cc: 24577 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, ivan <at> siamics.net
Subject: Re: bug#24577: 25.1; Proposal to improve C-u C-h c behavior
Date: Sat, 01 Oct 2016 16:42:03 +0500

Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org> wrote:

EZ> Then perhaps we could have both behaviors, one after a single "C-u",
EZ> the other after two "C-u"s.

This would be fine. Especially if C-u invoked the new behavior, and the
current behavior was moved to C-u C-u as less useful.

Regards,
Dmitri Paduchikh

Message #26 received at 24577 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Dmitri Paduchikh <dpaduchikh <at> gmail.com>
To: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
Cc: 24577 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, ivan <at> siamics.net
Subject: Re: bug#24577: 25.1; Proposal to improve C-u C-h c behavior
Date: Sat, 01 Oct 2016 17:09:23 +0500

I can propose one more variant of behavior: C-u C-h c asks user for
buffer where to insert the description.

Regards,
Dmitri Paduchikh

Message #29 received at 24577 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Marcin Borkowski <mbork <at> mbork.pl>
To: Ivan Shmakov <ivan <at> siamics.net>
Cc: Dmitri Paduchikh <dpaduchikh <at> gmail.com>, 24577 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#24577: 25.1; Proposal to improve C-u C-h c behavior
Date: Sat, 01 Oct 2016 22:14:02 +0200

On 2016-10-01, at 07:40, Ivan Shmakov <ivan <at> siamics.net> wrote:

> 	On the other hand, I’m not aware of any of Emacs commands adding
> 	the result of some operation directly to the kill ring.

For the record:

dired-copy-filename-as-kill
quick-calc (note that C-u'ing it inserts the result at point!)

Best,

-- 
Marcin Borkowski

Message #34 received at 24577 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Lars Ingebrigtsen <larsi <at> gnus.org>
To: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
Cc: Dmitri Paduchikh <dpaduchikh <at> gmail.com>, 24577 <at> debbugs.gnu.org,
 ivan <at> siamics.net
Subject: Re: bug#24577: 25.1; Proposal to improve C-u C-h c behavior
Date: Tue, 08 Feb 2022 07:48:55 +0100

Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org> writes:

>> >>       On the other hand, I’m not aware of any of Emacs commands adding
>> >>       the result of some operation directly to the kill ring.
>> 
>> I have seen the proposed behavior in emacs-w3m where w3m-print-this-url
>> behaves in this manner.
>
> Then perhaps we could have both behaviors, one after a single "C-u",
> the other after two "C-u"s.

(I'm going through old bug reports that unfortunately weren't resolved
at the time.)

In my opinion, this would complicate this command needlessly because I
don't think this would be used a lot.  The user can always jump to the
*Messages* buffer if they want to yank the message, and that works for
all commands like this, not just `C-h c'.

So I'm therefore closing this bug report.

-- 
(domestic pets only, the antidote for overdose, milk.)
   bloggy blog: http://lars.ingebrigtsen.no

Previous Next

GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham, 1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd, 1994-97 Ian Jackson.