Robert Widhopf-Fenk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Tuesday, May 25, 2004 at 11:51:00, Stefan Reichör wrote: >> Hi Milan! >> >> > Please don't use arrow keys for non-movement commands in xtla >> > major modes. This is very unemacsish, inconvenient and confusing. > > Well it is unemacsish, but inconvenient and confusing? > We could argue a lot on that, actually I added them as > they are convenient and intuitive, at least to me. > >> > For instance, I run `M-x tla-archives' and want to copy an archive >> > name to the kill ring. So I try to move with arrow keys to the >> > name and oops, pressing <right> starts network connection to fetch >> > the archive categories and pops new window. If I liked to see the >> > categories, I would press Enter. Why to bind it additionally to >> > another key? The same applies to <left> there. >> >> I don't like them also. >> What do others think? >> >> Robert, I think you introduced that kind of bindings. > > Yeah it was me. I never had a need to copy the archive name > or something else (: and when I would use forward-word and > backward-word or the like not left/right :) and in the other > cases I use the mouse to have it in the xselection buffer. > > Felt it was much more convenient than ^ (you need to press > two key on an American keyboard), RET, n and p, since the > cursor keys are all at the same location and thus made > browsing of (local) archives much faster. > > Then ALSO up/down should be unbound, as they are not moving > up/down a line but to the next item?
This bindings are natural for me, because they operate in the same buffer. The left/right bindings just prepare and display a different buffer. I have never seen that before - so it seems strange to me. > IMHO would be more convenient to allow a binding copying the > THING at point to the kill-ring, no need for you to set the > mark, move around and add it to the kill-ring. We could add that also - is the ?w binding still available? >> It would be o.k. to have an user option (default: nil) for that kind >> of bindings: tla-use-arrow-keys-for-navigation > > Sounds reasonable, but isn't it something like a > micro-theme for bindings breaking your demand for > > On , May 24, 2004 at 21:21:13, Stefan Reichör wrote: > [...] >> I think, we should define only ONE consistent binding scheme! > > ;c) Hehe, I see it that way: * We have one binding scheme * The tla-use-arrow-keys-for-navigation provides a set of additional bindings for users that find them usefull. -- Stefan.
