Unbind C-c ? and C-c C-h (maybe)

[mattiase]

Emacs expects ?, C-h and <f1> to be unbound in prefix maps because these keys are used to display a list of commands beginning with that prefix. For instance, M-s C-h normally shows all keys starting with M-s and so on.

Unfortunately Tuareg binds C-c ? and C-c C-h, leaving only <f1> for looking at the C-c space. This hampers discoverability a bit. The prefix maps (C-c in particular) are often crowded and shared by multiple packages, which is why this feature can be quite useful both for users and developers.

I understand that these bindings have been with Tuareg for a long time and some people may have them in their muscle memory; if you think that is more important, do close this issue as WONTFIX.

[erikmd]

Hi all,

@mattiase

Emacs expects ?, C-h and <f1> to be unbound in prefix maps because these keys are used to display a list of commands beginning with that prefix. For instance, M-s C-h normally shows all keys starting with M-s and so on.

Unfortunately Tuareg binds C-c ? and C-c C-h, leaving only for looking at the C-c space. This hampers discoverability a bit. The prefix maps (C-c in particular) are often crowded and shared by multiple packages, which is why this feature can be quite useful both for users and developers.

I believe that's a very good point: Emacs' native C-h suffix feature is indeed very handy to increase the discoverability…

BTW, I've seen in the Emacs' manual page "D.2 Key Binding Conventions" that they include this recommendation:

Don’t bind C-h following any prefix character (including C-c). If you don’t bind C-h, it is automatically available as a help character for listing the subcommands of the prefix character.

But, instead of "unbinding" caml-help, maybe one could just "rebind" the command caml-help to C-c M-h, for example?

Given with this mere rebinding, if some users often relied on C-c C-h, I guess they wouldn't be that surprised: as they would instead get a list of the keybindings… including the new one (C-c M-h :)

What do you think?

(FWIW, I'm not suggesting to use the simpler keybinding C-c h because of this other Emacs' manual recommendation:

Don’t define C-c letter as a key in Lisp programs. Sequences consisting of C-c and a letter (either upper or lower case) are reserved for users; they are the only sequences reserved for users, so do not block them. )

[erikmd]

However, I believe it's unneeded to change anything regarding C-c ? (if I'm not mistaken)

[erikmd]

Actually, it seems both caml-mode and tuareg-mode are concerned:

• tuareg/tuareg.el

  Line 1526 in 59446ec

  (define-key map [?\C-c ?\C-h] #'caml-help)

• caml.el: (define-key map [?\C-c?\C-h] 'caml-help)

[mattiase]

C-c ? is defined in both tuareg-mode and tuareg-interactive-mode (the REPL) and doesn't quite work in either, so perhaps these bindings haven't seen much use lately. It's tuareg-interactive-error-range-regexp that hasn't kept up with changes to the error message format, which also affects error highlighting in the REPL. This could be causing #248.

It also affects tuareg-eval-region, which apart from having its binding usurped by merlin-error-check also suffers from its position calculation being off, again affecting error parsing.

I'll see what can be done about these problems.

[Chris00]

I'm fine with binding caml-help to something else — C-cC-h was indeed inherited from caml-mode. I'm not too keen on C-cM-h as I find it cumbersome to type. Maybe C-cC-y — although it is less mnemonic or C-cC-?? What are other modes using?

[monnier]

indeed inherited from caml-mode. I'm not too keen on <kbd>C-cM-h</kbd> as I find it cumbersome to type. Maybe <kbd>C-cC-y</kbd> — although it is less mnemonic or <kbd>C-cC-?</kbd>? What are other modes using?

ELisp mode uses `C-h o`, then there's `C-h S` but I don't think it offers any way for caml-help.el to hook itself into it, and arguably this kind of functionality could be part of Xref but it's missing there. Oh and there's also Company-mode which makes it available in its list of completions, whee it's bound to F1 and `C-h`. Stefan

[mattiase]

All the good bindings seem to be taken. Maybe C-c C-o, for dOc?

And yes, I too wish Emacs had a standard way for showing documentation in programming modes.

[erikmd]

Hi all,

All the good bindings seem to be taken. Maybe C-c C-o, for dOc?

maybe… or maybe not 😅
− In the tuareg+merlin config we distribute to our students, we're precisely binding C-c C-o to merlin-iedit-occurrences (as occurrences starts with o :)
because the very handy merlin-iedit mode does not hard-code a key-binding itself.

So, counterproposal: would you be fine for binding C-c ? to caml-help ?

I see that in the fairly standard AUCTeX mode, we have the binding:

Signature:
(TeX-documentation-texdoc &optional ARG)

Key Bindings:
TeX-mode-map C-c ?

The advantage is that the meaning of ? is obvious, and it doesn't hinder the recommendation mentioned above: Don’t define C-c letter (either upper or lower case) as a key in Lisp programs., as ? is not a letter :)

Incidentally, it appears tuareg currently uses this binding, fortunately with another existing, synonymous binding C-c `:

Signature:
(tuareg-interactive-next-error-source)

Key Bindings:
tuareg-mode-map C-c ?
tuareg-mode-map C-c `

So even if this should be changed as well, I guess that'd be OK because C-c ` is more "intuitive" than C-c ? for "next error": according to the standard global binding C-x `…

WDYT?

[erikmd]

Sorry @mattiase, I've just realized you had already suggested the same, in your previous comment:

C-c ? is defined in both tuareg-mode and tuareg-interactive-mode (the REPL)
[…]

but this doesn't change my opinion that rebinding C-c ? would really make sense 🙂

Kind regards

[mattiase]

Good bindings are indeed hard to come by. I note that Merlin also has the unbound command merlin-document.

I've looked at other packages and predictably, there is no consensus about keybindings or anything else. The closest appears to be C-c C-d which seems fairly popular for documentation-related things, and it rolls off the fingers reasonably well, but of course Merlin uses it for merlin-destruct.

Ideally Emacs would have a standard (short! one key!) binding for a mode-specific describe-thing-at-point, with an extendible framework for actually displaying the information (in a window, in the echo area, in a popup overlay, etc) and with standard faces. Tuareg & friends would then use it to show the type, signature, parameter names and doc comment (markup-processed, not raw like merlin-document does it).

At least the above is what you would expect from any remotely modern programmer's editor.

It may also be useful to have a standard for other documentation-related commands, or a prefix for a collection of such commands. Several packages use C-c C-d as a prefix.

[erikmd]

Hi, indeed it seems all good solutions we could find for rebinding C-c C-h will need to rebind another keybinding as well (either C-c ? or C-c C-d in particular).

But after the comments above by @mattiase

C-c ? is defined in both tuareg-mode and tuareg-interactive-mode (the REPL) and doesn't quite work in either, so perhaps these bindings haven't seen much use lately […]

and mine:

I see that in the fairly standard AUCTeX mode, we have the binding: […] (TeX-documentation-texdoc &optional ARG) → C-c ?

and tuareg currently uses this binding, fortunately with another existing, synonymous binding C-c `:
(tuareg-interactive-next-error-source) → C-c ` and C-c ?

it seems that this latter choice would be at the same time natural, and causing the least harm (because C-c ` is already available, and intuitive).

So, if you don't object for replacing C-c C-h with C-c ?, I can open a PR if need be :)

[mattiase]

Well, failing the introduction of a standard Emacs key binding (don't hold your breath) I'd favour C-c C-d and asking the Merlin maintainers very politely if they can think of an alternative key for merlin-destruct. Maybe C-c C-e, for "explode" in the engineering sense of an exploded-view drawing that shows how an assembly is composed of parts?

However there are multiple candidates. Here's a question: if there were a single standard Emacs key for "display help for what is under the cursor without prompting the user for further information", what would you bind it to?

• caml-help
• merlin-document
• merlin-type-enclosing
• something else?

[Chris00]

Here's a question: if there were a single standard Emacs key for "display help for what is under the cursor without prompting the user for further information", what would you bind it to?

For me, it would be merlin-document if available, caml-help as a fallback.

[monnier]

Well, failing the introduction of a standard Emacs key binding (don't hold your breath) I'd favour `C-c C-d` and asking the Merlin maintainers very politely if they can think of an alternative key for `merlin-destruct`.

BTW, we could treat the doc as a kind of "definition", and thus add the doc as a possible choice in `M-.`. Stefan

[mattiase]

BTW, we could treat the doc as a kind of "definition", and thus add the doc as a possible choice in M-..

Yes, and I had a brief chat with Dmitry about it. It doesn't really looks like it fits with the framework or the concept. And the prospect of a universal single-keystroke context-sensitive documentation key is tempting, and has proven very useful in other programming environments.

It would also water down M-.: where it previously would have jumped to the definition directly, we would now have to choose between that and the docs. Better to keep the operations separate.

[monnier]

> BTW, we could treat the doc as a kind of "definition", and thus add the doc as a possible choice in `M-.`. Yes, and I had a brief chat with Dmitry about it. It doesn't really looks like it fits with the framework or the concept.

Yeah, it's indeed not quite right.

[Chris00]

All the good bindings seem to be taken. Maybe C-c C-o, for dOc?

I was thinking that C-c C-o would be good for merlin-occurrences.

[mattiase]

merlin-occurrences seems to work essentially like xref-find-references, bound to M-?. Maybe they should be unified?

[Chris00]

I agree (I discovered M-? after posting this 😀). This is part of the issue I am writing for Merlin.

[catern]

How about C-h .? That's what eglot uses.

[monnier]

How about `C-h .`? That's what Eglot uses.

Fine by me (it's a kind of natural mix of `C-h` and `M-.`). It will collide with Eglot, for those using the OCaml LSP server, tho, but presumably those users won't be bothered to have Tuareg's binding hidden by Eglot's.

[erikmd]

@monnier I think this issue (addressed by PR #309) can be closed.