[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: emacs for everything?
From: |
Joe Corneli |
Subject: |
Re: emacs for everything? |
Date: |
Thu, 18 Nov 2004 16:41:26 -0600 |
> .... and if you have all of those on the terminal, I assume that some
> are just cheap simulations.
Cheap simulations? How dare you, sir!
Because you _can_ simulate them under emacs. However the result is
not as convenient as the real thing.
No, I've got C and M, but not H, s, or A. Haven't got enough keys on my
keyboard for these,
Sometimes you must be willing to cannibalize. I cannibalized the
number row and just type numbers with an embedded keypad.
and I'm not sure I've got enough commands I'd want to bind to
them, anyway. Maybe I could use one of the modifiers to take the
place of C-x or C-c, thus saving keystrokes. Is that what you
use them for?
Not exactly, though that's the rough idea. The X modifiers are a
throwback to the space cadet keyboard. Good for typing mathematical
text, for example. If there were a couple more modifiers I'd be
even happier.
By the way, what does `T' stand for?
Just itself.
- Re: emacs for everything?, (continued)
- Message not available
- Re: emacs for everything?, Floyd L. Davidson, 2004/11/27
- Message not available
- Re: emacs for everything?, David Hansen, 2004/11/28
- dual head video system (was Re: emacs for everything?), ken, 2004/11/30
- Message not available
- Re: dual head video system, Floyd L. Davidson, 2004/11/30
- Re: emacs for everything?, Alan Mackenzie, 2004/11/18
- Message not available
- Re: emacs for everything?, Alan Mackenzie, 2004/11/17
- Re: emacs for everything?, Joe Corneli, 2004/11/17
- Message not available
- Re: emacs for everything?, Alan Mackenzie, 2004/11/18
- Re: emacs for everything?,
Joe Corneli <=