Re: scheme-describe-symbol

[Keisuke Nishida <kxn30@po.cwru.edu>]

Kalle Olavi Niemitalo <tosi@ees2.oulu.fi> writes:

> >   (foo bar)
> >        ^
> > One may want to search for `foo' when one type C-h f and for `bar'
> > when one type C-h v.  So I guess we should define one function
> > `scheme-describe-object' and two commands `scheme-describe-function'
> > and `scheme-describe-variable'.  How about that?
> 
> So the functions would default to different symbols when called
> interactively, and would otherwise be identical?  Hmm... I think
> I'd prefer using the prefix argument to choose between them.

Yes, they would.  I don't think using the prefix argument is easier to
use here.  We use separate commands in Emacs Lisp, and I prefer the same
key bindings as them.  (I could customize them, though.)

> Still... currently, C-h f explains Emacs functions and C-h C-i
> explains non-Emacs symbols based on the major mode.  I think this
> is a good separation and C-h f should not be used for e.g. C
> functions.  If the only Emacs languages are Lisp and Scheme, do
> we need a language selection menu?  It would be simpler to have
> `describe-function' on C-h f and `scheme-describe' on C-h d.
> Except that doesn't solve M-:.

Probably you are right.  A variable in a language other than Lisp or
Scheme cannot have a value within Emacs, so especially describe-variable
may not be useful for those languages...  I would prefer to type C-u M-:
to choose a language (and default is decided by major-mode).

> Would each buffer using the same major mode have its own instance
> of the major-mode class?

Possibly.  We need to discuss this later on.