Carsten Dominik carsten.domi...@gmail.com writes:
How many of your are using these keys
C-c C-f
C-c C-b
C-c C-n
C-c C-p
for navigation through the outline? These are first class keys,
and I would have good uses for these keys if most people don't
actually use them.
I use C-c C-n and
Carsten Dominik carsten.domi...@gmail.com wrote:
How many of your are using these keys
C-c C-f
C-c C-b
C-c C-n
C-c C-p
for navigation through the outline?
I use them all the time but I don't mind if they'd change.
Another question:
C-c C-v currently make the TODO sparse tree.
dto.
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
On 05/09/2010 04:26 PM, Also sprach Leo:
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-
On May 9, 2010, at 4:26 PM, 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,
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,
On 2010-05-09 16:59 +0100, Nick Dokos wrote:
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
Carsten Dominik carsten.domi...@gmail.com writes:
Isn't this a legitimate case for overwriting these? The outline structure is
a
hierarchical structure which can be traversed in a similar way as the
parenthesis structure in Lisp code Emacs major mode conventions allow
overwriting
Leo sdl@gmail.com writes:
Perhaps you haven't noticed. SEXP is a useful abstract. For example, it
allows you to move across some_long_function_name in C and even in the
message-mode I'm currently using, not just parenthesis. Situation like
this will arise when editing org files too. It is
On 2010-05-09 16:24 +0100, Carsten Dominik wrote:
Isn't this a legitimate case for overwriting these? The outline
structure is a hierarchical structure which can be traversed in a
similar way as the parenthesis structure in Lisp code Emacs major
mode conventions allow overwriting general
On 2010-05-09 18:33 +0100, Sebastian Rose wrote:
Perhaps you haven't noticed, that C-M-a and C-M-e do not anything
usefull or similar to what you describe in Org-mode buffers.
Navigating sections would be something similar and useful. Wouldn't it?
I already stated it makes sense to
Leo sdl@gmail.com writes:
On 2010-05-09 16:59 +0100, Nick Dokos wrote:
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
Nick Dokos nicholas.do...@hp.com writes:
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
Nick Dokos nicholas.do...@hp.com writes:
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
On May 9, 2010, at 9:00 PM, Dan Davison wrote:
Nick Dokos nicholas.do...@hp.com writes:
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,
Carsten Dominik carsten.domi...@gmail.com writes:
How many of your are using these keys
C-c C-f
C-c C-b
C-c C-n
C-c C-p
I use them because I need to navigate the outline structure and they
are the only keybindings I know of.
I just realized (by looking in org.el) that org mode has
Carsten Dominik carsten.domi...@gmail.com writes:
How many of your are using these keys
C-c C-f
C-c C-b
C-c C-n
C-c C-p
I am not using them.
C-c C-v currently make the TODO sparse tree.
I would like to put this tree on `C-c / t' which would be quite logical
and free up another
Carsten Dominik carsten.domi...@gmail.com writes:
How many of your are using these keys
C-c C-f
C-c C-b
C-c C-n
C-c C-p
FWIW, I do not use them. Speedkeys are my favorites.
[`C-c / t' to make a TODO sparse tree?]
+1
Consistency is much more important for defaultkeybindings than
already
Eric Schulte schulte.e...@gmail.com writes:
Carsten Dominik carsten.domi...@gmail.com writes:
Hi everyone,
I am wondering:
How many of your are using these keys
C-c C-f
C-c C-b
C-c C-n
C-c C-p
Not me, I'm using CM-n, CM-p, CM-u, and CM-d for outline navigation.
Same here.
I'm also
Carsten Dominik carsten.domi...@gmail.com writes:
Hi everyone,
I am wondering:
How many of your are using these keys
C-c C-f
C-c C-b
C-c C-n
C-c C-p
Hi Carsten,
I currently use all of the four navigation keys above. C-c C-n and C-c
C-p are the two I use the most. If there was some
On 08.05.10 11:14 Uhr, Carsten Dominik wrote:
Hi everyone,
I am wondering:
How many of your are using these keys
C-c C-f
C-c C-b
C-c C-n
C-c C-p
I don't use them. They are much too bothersom for me if I have to press
them repeatedly.
for navigation through the outline? These are first
21 matches
Mail list logo
