rms@mit-prep (06/10/85)
From: Richard M. Stallman <rms@mit-prep> I am thinking of using C-c as the special prefix character in sendmail instead of C-z as now. What do you think of this? I recently received the pyramid changes, and will post them in a day or so after I have confirmed a couple of things.
saj@mit-prep (06/10/85)
From: Scott Jones <saj@mit-prep> I vote for C-c.
sjk@sri-spam (06/10/85)
From: Scott J. Kramer <sjk@sri-spam> As long as C-c C-c doesn't mail the message, I'm for it. It turns out that when I use the MICOM dialup from home, C-c is sometimes transmitted; it happened several times earlier and it just "ding"d when I was in gnuemacs, which is more than I can say for the long shell lines that like to abort as I nearly finish typing them. I'd prefer nearly *any* prefix over the current C-z map; I was gonna change it anyway after getting the self-customizing documentation mods so I didn't have to bother with that inconsistency. By the way, did someone have problems with insert/delete character not working? They worked okay here until, I think, the latest release. I'm tired of using "open-line" and "delete-indentation" at 1200 baud. scott
figmo@tymix.Tymnet (06/11/85)
From: figmo@tymix.Tymnet (Lynn Gold) Please keep it as Control-Z. Some people set Control-C to be the character they use to get out of a process and would try prefixing only to find themselves hopelessly lost from their sendmail mode edit. --Lynn Gold Reply-to: FIGMO@MC.ARPA
rms@mit-prep (06/15/85)
From: Richard M. Stallman <rms@mit-prep> In Lisp Interaction mode, currently Return inserts a newline and Linefeed executes the previous expression. It has been suggested that Return should execute the previous expression, and Linefeed should have its normal Lisp mode meaning (insert newline and indent). Do you like this change? In the previous poll on prefix characters in sendmail, nearly everyone wanted to change from C-z to C-c, and I have already implemented this in the current version.
rms@PREP.AI.MIT.EDU (09/01/86)
From: rms@PREP.AI.MIT.EDU (Richard M. Stallman) Right now the Emacs manual has four separate indices for four categories of things: the concept index, the function and command name index, the variable index and the key index. Do you think that it would be better to combine these into one index? I do not want to have both the separate indices and the combined index, because that means too many extra pages.
tower@PREP.AI.MIT.EDU (09/02/86)
From: tower@PREP.AI.MIT.EDU (Leonard H. Tower Jr.)
Date: Mon, 1 Sep 86 06:55:33 EDT
From: rms (Richard M. Stallman)
Right now the Emacs manual has four separate indices for four
categories of things: the concept index, the function and command
name index, the variable index and the key index.
Do you think that it would be better to combine these into one index?
The Key index should remain separate. It's entries would fall into a
few long contiguous groups in a combined index, so it might as well be
separate.
The other three should be combined, as long as each entry has a tag on
it to distinguish it's type. Using typeface for this purpose would be
ok (except for those without access to high-typographic-quality
printers), or a parenthesized code [e.g.
(i) for idea or info
(f) function
(v) variable
]pinkas@mipos3.UUCP (Israel Pinkas) (09/03/86)
Leave the indecies alone. It is the fastest way to look something up. In my manual I have tabs for each of the four indecies for fast access. I also have photocopies of the name index on the wall so that I do not have to look things up when I don't remember the name of a command but I have an idea of what it is. (I know, I could always use apropos, but I am not always in emacs when I need the info.) -Israel
desj@brahms.BERKELEY.EDU (David desJardins) (09/04/86)
In article <175@mipos3.UUCP> pinkas@mipos3.intel.com.CSNET (Israel Pinkas) writes: > > (I know, I could always use apropos, but I am not >always in emacs when I need the info.) And besides, I could walk home, look it up, and walk back to school, in the time it takes GNU Emacs to do an apropos search. I vote for keeping the four indices. -- David desJardins
phr@ernie.Berkeley.EDU (09/04/86)
From: phr@ernie.Berkeley.EDU (Paul Rubin) I think the combined index in The TeXbook worked pretty well. It used font changes and other hacks to convey information about what kind of entry each thing was, and had a huge number of entries (4 or 5 columns by maybe 10 pages, if I remember).