> WDYT? I like it. Indeed, I was tempted to suggest removing document scope but, as an end user, I moderate my proposals to be more or less conservative.
There are some complications though. If we remove the document scope bindings we have to refactor the current function quite a bit, because the interface it provides is purely interactive relying on numerical arguments. Maybe a split would be in order. I don't like this aspect that much. What do you think of this variation of your last proposal: C-c C-x C-l: as you defined it C-u C-c C-x C-l: preview document scope. C-- (or C-0) C-c C-x C-l: as you defined C-u C-c C-x C-l. C-- (or C-0) C-u C-c C-x C-l: unpreview document scope. Here I'm keeping both of your bindings although C-u is changed to C-- (or C-0, I think both are good mnemonics - = remove, 0 = leave zero). Then C-u is free to be used to signal document scope. I dislike the idea of swapping the roles of this modifiers because of the mnemonic advantage, even if "clearing previews" is to be used more often than "document scope". If you prefer to keep just your two bindings instead, we need to discuss how to offer the "document scope" interface to the end user. Best regards -- Carlos
