Kyle Meyer <k...@kyleam.com> writes: > Eric Abrahamsen writes: > >> Hi all, >> >> The C-c SPC keybinding is pretty prime property (it's also, according to >> Emacs conventions, meant to be reserved for the user, though I know >> that's already out the window with Org), > > Based on my reading of (info "(elisp)Key Binding Conventions"), I think > `C-c SPC` doesn't fall into the user's `C-c LETTER' territory but > instead into the this group: > > Sequences consisting of ‘C-c’ followed by any other ASCII > punctuation or symbol character are allocated for minor modes. > Using them in a major mode is not absolutely prohibited, but if you > do that, the major mode binding may be shadowed from time to time > by minor modes.
Oh, interesting, thanks -- I've always found that section impossible to remember, and it seems to often be disregarded, anyway. In this case, I guess we could consider the keybinding to be kind of "minor-mode-ish", if you thought of commands that operate on Org tables to be like a minor mode that's only active when point is inside a table. [...] >> But, either way, I don't disagree with what you say next. >> >>> and it's currently bound to `org-table-blank-field', which is useless >>> unless you... happen to be in a table. I don't use tables often (or >>> blank fields when I do), which means this binding is effectively just >>> removed. > > Does it actually need a key binding? I've never used it and just use > <tab> to move to the next field, leaving the field blank. I assume it's meant for blanking a field you've already typed something into. But yes, I can't imagine it's a heavily-used command, and I suspect the C-c <SPC> binding is mostly mnemonic: "make this field contain only blanks". >>> >>> What do people think about making it a no-op when not on a table >>> (letting it fall through to the global map), or putting it in a keymap >>> text property on tables, or otherwise not hogging the binding? >> >> In my view, the first would be fine, and the second also unless someone >> chimes in with a technical reason not to. For the last, perhaps `C-c >> C-SPC' would be an okay replacement, though I'd assume that would break >> some users' muscle memory in a surprising and unpleasant way. > > I'm not familiar with how this is all put together inside org mode. > If it is possible to configure things so that it is only bound when > inside a table and does not shadow other bindings for that sequence > outside a table, I think that would be a positive change. However, I do > also note that this is the type of change which tends to cause 'ripples' > and may have unexpected impact in other areas, such as other packages, > predefined or 'canned' emacs configurations etc. The way Org handles these situations now is to have a command that is named for its actual keybinding (eg `org-shiftmetaleft'), which then examines its context and dispatches to various other functions. That's a bit odd and not really how it's done in Emacs -- but I am not proposing we change this as it is pretty fundamental to how Org is set up and would wreck a bunch of stuff if it were changed. I thought Emacs might have some easy way to let a key event "fall through" to other keymaps, but I haven't been able to find anything immediately obvious. Maybe I can ask on emacs.devel... Eric