Re: keys and command name info

[Memnon Anon <gegendosenfleisch@googlemail.com>]

Dan Davison <davison@stats.ox.ac.uk> writes:

> I would like the command names in the manual.
>
> - Emacs-lisp has a lovely tradition of naming functions *very*
>   descriptively and not being afraid to use long names in the interests
>   of accuracy. It's a shame to lose all that by displaying only key
>   sequences. It's a linguistic world of its own and I like being exposed
>   to it.
> - While one can do C-h k, that's not the same as the way one learns the
>   function names by skimming the manual

I am 'just a user', with next to nothing elisp skills under his belt.
However, I am willing to learn and I try to modify simple bits to the
best of my abilities.

So, I should probably argue against inclusion of the command names...

But I do not.

I got into Emacs because of orgmode, but I did not stop there.
The Info system is just great for discovering lots of possibilities, and
I really got accustomed to seeing the elisp commands associated to the
keybindings. Somehow, from the start right until this thread started, it
feld curious to me that these are not "right there". 

Sure, I have less need for them in orgmode than in, say w3m or gnus,
because the defaults are so great I never considered to change them, but
I (as a still fairly recent Emacs user) felt the documentation - as
great as it is! - to be somewhat out of the line in this regard.

I do not see my behaviour will change over the times to come, and right,
`C-h k' is available to everyone, but I still would humbly vote for
following the accustomed style, i.e. including the elisp function
names. 

It is, in my case, rather a vote motivated by consistency.

Memnon