From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Carsten Dominik Subject: Re: Re: Poll: Who is using these commands Date: Mon, 10 May 2010 07:07:13 +0200 Message-ID: References: <20100508202159.GA32505@taupan.ath.cx> <4BE5DF9C.909@gmail.com> <245881E6-B69D-4E6F-A1B1-C4EFA39AF7BC@gmail.com> <3634.1273420760@gamaville.dokosmarshall.org> <87fx20hpe1.fsf@stats.ox.ac.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v936) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1OBLDK-00029r-AK for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Mon, 10 May 2010 01:07:34 -0400 Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=54056 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1OBLDE-00029M-R7 for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Mon, 10 May 2010 01:07:33 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OBLD7-0001zW-Iv for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Mon, 10 May 2010 01:07:28 -0400 Received: from ey-out-1920.google.com ([74.125.78.145]:39166) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OBLD7-0001zJ-CA for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Mon, 10 May 2010 01:07:21 -0400 Received: by ey-out-1920.google.com with SMTP id 13so284689eye.34 for ; Sun, 09 May 2010 22:07:20 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <87fx20hpe1.fsf@stats.ox.ac.uk> 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: Dan Davison Cc: nicholas.dokos@hp.com, emacs-orgmode@gnu.org, Leo On May 9, 2010, at 9:00 PM, Dan Davison wrote: > 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). Hi Dan, good observation, I had not realized this. Hmmmmmm. We are not there yet. - Carsten