From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Dan Davison Subject: Re: Poll: Who is using these commands Date: Sun, 09 May 2010 14:59:50 -0400 Message-ID: <87hbmghpeh.fsf@stats.ox.ac.uk> References: <20100508202159.GA32505@taupan.ath.cx> <4BE5DF9C.909@gmail.com> <245881E6-B69D-4E6F-A1B1-C4EFA39AF7BC@gmail.com> <3634.1273420760@gamaville.dokosmarshall.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1OBBjM-0001Ai-6I for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Sun, 09 May 2010 15:00:00 -0400 Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=41129 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1OBBjJ-0001Aa-St for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Sun, 09 May 2010 14:59:58 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OBBjH-0001e6-GP for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Sun, 09 May 2010 14:59:57 -0400 Received: from markov.stats.ox.ac.uk ([163.1.210.1]:40872) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OBBjH-0001dg-96 for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Sun, 09 May 2010 14:59:55 -0400 In-Reply-To: <3634.1273420760@gamaville.dokosmarshall.org> (Nick Dokos's message of "Sun, 09 May 2010 11:59:20 -0400") List-Id: "General discussions about Org-mode." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org@gnu.org To: nicholas.dokos@hp.com Cc: emacs-orgmode@gnu.org, Leo Nick Dokos writes: > Leo wrote: > >> On 2010-05-09 12:43 +0100, Carsten Dominik wrote: >> > what do you think about C-M-f, C-M-b, C-M-n, C-M-p as alternative >> > bindings? These seem to make *a lot* of sense, because, as many here >> > have pointed out, they are so much better repeatable (Keep C-M- down, >> > press the character.) >> >> It is terrible idea to override these parenthesis movement bindings. >> They are universal in all editing modes that if overridden people who >> also use other emacs packages will be surprised. For example to move >> from a open parenthesis to a closing parenthesis. >> > > I disagree: they are not parenthesis movement bindings - they are > structure-navigation bindings. For example, C-M-f is forward-sexp. > In lisp, an sexp has some relationship to parentheses, but it is > incidental; in other programming modes, an sexp is whatever makes > sense in that language and these commands are redefined appropriately. > > I think it is entirely appropriate to use these bindings to navigate > structure in org-mode as well. I basically agree. However, the proposed mapping between SEXP movement commands in programming modes and in org-mode seems rather loose: Presumably the intended mapping is C-c C-n <--> C-M-n "n command" C-c C-f <--> C-M-f "f command" That suggests that the n command in Org-mode should skip over the next subtree, like forward-list; however, it advances over a body to the start of the next subtree. In fact, isn't there an argument that the Org bindings are the wrong way round? If we define in Org-mode: - atom :: the body of a heading - SEXP :: an atom, or a subtree then the n command in Org-mode currently behaves a bit like forward-sexp (C-M-f) , whereas the f command in Org-mode behaves a bit like forward-list (C-M-n). Dan > > My 2 cents, > Nick > > > > _______________________________________________ > Emacs-orgmode mailing list > Please use `Reply All' to send replies to the list. > Emacs-orgmode@gnu.org > http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-orgmode