You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
:buffer-close, :buffer-next, :buffer-prev, and the rest only exist as typable commands, but commands like wclose exist as static commands.
This makes it awkward as I have to type, for example, :bclose to bind it to a key. This also has the side effect of not automatically filling in the doc string in <space>?.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
This makes it awkward as I have to type, for example, :bclose to bind it to a key. This also has the side effect of not automatically filling in the doc string in <space>?.
I don't understand these points - you can bind typable commands to keys like static commands:
[keys.normal]
C-x = ":buffer-close"
and I see the binding for C-x in the command palette show :buffer-close's doc
Ah, I think we can fix that - it would be better to show the typed command's docs instead of what would be executed when it's a single command that doesn't take any arguments. I would prefer to improve that display (and any other rough edges of typed commands) rather than introduce duplicate static commands.
:buffer-close
,:buffer-next
,:buffer-prev
, and the rest only exist as typable commands, but commands likewclose
exist as static commands.This makes it awkward as I have to type, for example,
:bclose
to bind it to a key. This also has the side effect of not automatically filling in the doc string in<space>?
.The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: