neovim
feat(defaults): add LSP default mappings (again)
This is the PR to re-introduce default LSP mappings after being reverted in #28649. The goal is to merge this early in the 0.11 release cycle.
I've changed the defaults to use the gl prefix rather than cr. This avoids all of the messiness with operator-pending mode that was discussed in #28634. We had originally wanted to "reserve" gl for a future "align" feature, but using it as the general purpose "LSP prefix" might be more high leverage (and we can always use gla or ga for "align", falling back to :ascii for the default ga behavior).
We can still revisit these mappings (I think in particular the <C-S> mapping in Insert mode is a bit controversial), but at some point an executive decision will need to be made. We can't please everyone with defaults, so some people are going to be unhappy, unfortunately, but the hope is that providing reasonable defaults makes the onboarding experience easier for more users.
Argument against gr prefix is that if a user does want to restore the builtin gr behavior, they would have to delete all of the mappings under the gr prefix (although I suppose the same argument applies to anyone using a plugin that currently maps gl, so maybe that's actually not a very strong argument).
I don't think the same argument applies to plugins that map gl. The builtin gr can be following by any character, but that's not likely to apply to plugins that map gl.
Meanwhile, another argument for using gl instead of gr is that gl is easier to type.
I don't think the same argument applies to plugins that map
gl. The builtingrcan be following by any character, but that's not likely to apply to plugins that mapgl.
Ah I see what you mean. I am referring to the fact that if we create new gl prefixed keys, then pressing gl will require a delay to use the gl behavior provided by the plugin. If a user wants the mapping to work as before, they have to delete all other keymaps that are prefixed with gl (or change the mapping to gla or something, which is probably what I will do if this goes through).
Whereas there is no alternative, planned use-case for "gr".
"gr" could be used for LSP references
Whereas there is no alternative, planned use-case for "gr".
"gr" could be used for LSP references
grr is LSP references. gr becomes a prefix for a group of related mappings.
Current proposal is:
grr -> vim.lsp.buf.references()
gra -> vim.lsp.buf.code_action() (works in Visual mode too)
grn -> vim.lsp.buf.rename()
In Insert mode:
<C-S> -> vim.lsp.buf.signature_help()
Whereas there is no alternative, planned use-case for "gr".
"gr" could be used for LSP references
That is completely missing the point.
gr is very commonly used for LSP references (see for example https://www.lazyvim.org/keymaps#lsp, https://github.com/nvim-lua/kickstart.nvim/blob/master/init.lua#L475 its also recommended mapping by bunch of other stuff). and g as prefix is often used as goto (see native gg, gd, gD) so stuff like code actions, rename (and possibly) format imo do not rly makes sense behind it.
Imo the lsp refactor stuff and lsp goto stuff should have separate prefixes as its 2 very different operations but thats just my 2 cents.
and g as prefix is often used as goto (see native gg, gd, gD)
The g prefix does not mean goto. gs, gp, ga, g8, g?, gJ, gu, gU, gv, gq, gw, and g~ are all counter examples.
Imo the lsp refactor stuff and lsp goto stuff
"LSP goto stuff" is just 'tagfunc', which uses the builtin mappings from :h tag.
gr is very commonly used for LSP references
The proposal here is to use grr for references. Is moving from gr to grr that much of a problem?
Imo the lsp refactor stuff and lsp goto stuff
"LSP goto stuff" is just
'tagfunc', which uses the builtin mappings from:h tag.
Well LSP goto stuff can also include implementation, type definiton, defition, declaration, which could possibly also have mappings.
gr is very commonly used for LSP references
The proposal here is to use
grrfor references. Is moving fromgrtogrrthat much of a problem?
Well is there any reason to not use the mappings that ppl are already used to? The mappings are unused and LSP being integral part of neovim I think justifies not putting the whole thing behind single prefix (especially when gr doesnt even mean anything here that could be used as mnemonic)
Well is there any reason to not use the mappings that ppl are already used to?
Yes, because default mappings have much greater constraints than arbitrary user mappings. If we make gr map to references, we cannot use gr as a prefix for anything else. So instead of grr, gra, and grn (3 default mappings), we have gr (1 mapping) and have to find separate mappings for the other two. Finding unused default mappings is extremely difficult (if you've been following the "new LSP defaults" saga then you will have observed this).
I will be 100% clear about this (and I will probably end up repeating myself): it is not possible, nor is there any expectation, that we will find default mappings that make everyone happy. The goal is to provide a better out of the box experience for new and less experienced users by providing access to builtin Neovim capabilities without needing much (or any) additional configuration. Experienced and power users will likely have separate preferences, but they already know how to create and delete mappings, so they are free to ignore the defaults.
This is not setting definition Is this already covered by something else? Otherwise, imo, definition and references are the most important ones.
What determines the selection of these mappings?
Is this already covered by something else
it's C-] by default. there is a proposal to map it to gd in #28476
