Mark Walters <markwalters1009@gmail.com> writes: > On Mon, 17 Oct 2016, Matt Armstrong <marmstrong@google.com> wrote: >> David Bremner <david@tethera.net> writes: >> >>> I (very) recently started using longer key sequences with Mark's >>> tag-jump feature. One thing I miss from a similar feature in org-mode >>> (e.g. exporting) is some visual feedback on what I have typed so far, >>> and thus what my next key is likely to do. >> >> Tangentially, has an alternative UI been considered such as something >> based on ido? I mention this merely because building on something >> standard is probably going to be less work and more familiar to users. > > The nice feature of jump is that it is very fast to type: I can get to > my common saved searches in two keystrokes. I think the multistep is > more specialised and probably more useful for tag-jump -- I imagine > uses along the lines of k (to enter tag jump) n to enter notmuch:: > prefixed tags, and then a letter for the appropriate notmuch:: tag. > >> The other day I was thinking that if no "jumps" are configured, and the >> user has ido mode on, selecting among all saved searches with ido would >> be a natural thing for 'j' to do. Some users (probably me) may then >> never bother to set up shortcut keys. > > I think this would make it very confusing when/if people did add a saved > jump. If we want to offer something like ido completion then I would > suggest putting it under a further character in the jump map. eg j j > would lead to ido completion, and then if people add normal jump short > cuts everything stays the same. (We would want to make sure that user > jump binding override this j binding so that we don't break anybodies > existing setup.) > > Best wishes Mark, no disagreement from me. I might, someday, hack up something based on ido (or an ido-like UI) to see how it works out.