Thanks for your feedback.
"Sebastien Vauban" <sva-news-D0wtAvR13HarG/idocf...@public.gmane.org> writes: >> - use C-c < for selecting the whole subtree, which is consistent >> with the use of `<' as a speedy command for doing the same. > > You put the finger on one important note to me: that speed commands are > "the same" as their longer counterpart. It should be good if all of > them could be obtainable by adding "C-c C-" in front of the speed > command. I think it goes in the opposite direction: if a command is bound to C-c KEY or C-c C-KEY then KEY should be used as a speed command. > With that focus in mind, I find `C-c x' not a good one (for checkboxes); > though, in that case, speed commands don't come into play. The mnemonic here is: `x' reminds me of [x] -- let's see if something better can be done. > But I find it > too different from the `C-c C-' construct used for the others? I wanted to keep it close to C-c #, and use only C-c KEY. >> Let me know how you feel about such move in general and each rebinding >> in particular. We are not forced to solve them all at once. > > Globally, it's fine! > > Last remark about `C-c <' which I find not good: > > - `<' in used for filtering categories in the agenda, Categories are (most often) attached to a subtree. When you hit the `<' speed command on this subtree then display the agenda, you don't need to filter by category with `<' since the narrowing already filters (by category) for you. That's actually one of the reason for which I propose this key. > - semantically, what `C-c @' does is a `C-x h' limited to a subtree; > maybe there could be something inspiring similar to `C-x h'? Maybe > `C-u C-x h'? The way to get the same behavior than `C-c @' is `C-c C-^ M-h'. M-h is very very handy, and probably not known enough! -- Bastien