On Fri, 27 May 2011 10:29:17 +0200 Aurélien Aptel <aurelien.ap...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, May 27, 2011 at 4:52 AM, John Matthewman > <jmatthew...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Yea, probably a good idea (of course, ignoring Emacs' chained > > keybindings). Sandy would benefit from a better set of default > > bindings. Though for reference you might want to look at something > > like mg [http://www.openbsd.org/cgi-bin/man.cgi?query=mg], or one of > > the other micro Emacs implementations, as they'll have the most > > important bindings and commands, and you won't have to sift through > > all of the extra garbage that is Emacs. > > *Please*, use sane keybindings. Emacs and vi were made with a specific > keyboard from the 70s in mind. A time were the hjkl keys had little > arrows on them. A triangle layout (wqsd or ijkl for example) is much > easier to type. > > Highly recommended readings from the (in?)famous Xah Lee: > http://xahlee.org/emacs/keyboard_hardware_and_key_choices.html > http://xahlee.org/kbd/vi_emacs_keybinding_design.html > http://xahlee.org/comp/keyboard_shortcut_design.html > > Keyboard related (prepare for some time warp if you start reading): > http://xahlee.org/Periodic_dosage_dir/keyboarding.html > how ironic you pledge for "sane" keybindings and suggest bindings optimized for qwerty users... I use dvorak, so I would prefer bindings optimized for that, but I realise different people use different layouts, so everyone should be able to choose how they like it. Dieter