Leo <sdl....@gmail.com> 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. 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
