[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Proposal: new default bindings for winner and windmove
From: |
Daniel Colascione |
Subject: |
Re: Proposal: new default bindings for winner and windmove |
Date: |
Sun, 23 Jun 2024 09:34:34 -0400 |
User-agent: |
K-9 Mail for Android |
On June 23, 2024 9:29:21 AM EDT, Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> wrote:
>Hello, Stefan.
>
>On Sun, Jun 23, 2024 at 05:30:32 -0700, Stefan Kangas wrote:
>> Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> writes:
>
>> > As I said, C-x 4 <arrow keys> are convenient to you for windmove
>> > commands. They'll be convenient to other users for other commands in
>> > just the same way. You're proposing imposing your setup on everybody.
>> > I'm against this.
>
>> I think "imposing" is overstating the case, given that anyone can
>> easily unbind or rebind keybindings they don't like.
>
>Maybe. The post I was responding to didn't consist entirely of nuanced
>reasoned argument either.
>
>I also think "... can easily unbind or rebind keybindings ..." is also
>an exaggeration. It can be done, yes, by somebody who knows how, but
>finding where to unbind them and how is more than just a few minutes
>work for the typical user.
>
>I speak from experience here. org mode binds some arrow key
>combinations. Two of these, C-S-<up> and C-S-<down> which do some minor
>thing in org mode are bindings I use to scroll the current window
>down/up 6 lines. So, when somebody changed NEWS from outline mode to
>org mode some while ago, my finger memory stopped working. I never got
>around to disabling these bindings in org mode - it was just too much
>work.
That's getting into spacebar heating territory. It's two lines of code. We
shouldn't inconvenience every user everywhere just to save some theoretical
person time rebinding keys. Also, because we're talking about the global
keymap, not a minor mode one, users don't have to do anything special to
override our keybindings with theirs --- define-key will Just Work. Again,
you're presenting a general purpose argument against the whole concept of
defaults.
- Re: Proposal: new default bindings for winner and windmove, Stefan Monnier, 2024/06/21
- Re: Proposal: new default bindings for winner and windmove, Stefan Kangas, 2024/06/21
- Re: Proposal: new default bindings for winner and windmove, Alan Mackenzie, 2024/06/23
- Re: Proposal: new default bindings for winner and windmove, Daniel Colascione, 2024/06/23
- Re: Proposal: new default bindings for winner and windmove, Alan Mackenzie, 2024/06/23
- Re: Proposal: new default bindings for winner and windmove, Stefan Kangas, 2024/06/23
- Re: Proposal: new default bindings for winner and windmove, Alan Mackenzie, 2024/06/23
- Re: Proposal: new default bindings for winner and windmove,
Daniel Colascione <=
- Re: Proposal: new default bindings for winner and windmove, Eli Zaretskii, 2024/06/23
- Re: Proposal: new default bindings for winner and windmove, chad, 2024/06/23
- RE: [External] : Re: Proposal: new default bindings for winner and windmove, Drew Adams, 2024/06/23
- Re: Proposal: new default bindings for winner and windmove, Daniel Colascione, 2024/06/23
- Re: Proposal: new default bindings for winner and windmove, Po Lu, 2024/06/23
- Re: Proposal: new default bindings for winner and windmove, Daniel Colascione, 2024/06/23
- Re: Proposal: new default bindings for winner and windmove, Po Lu, 2024/06/23
- Re: Proposal: new default bindings for winner and windmove, Eli Zaretskii, 2024/06/23
- Re: Proposal: new default bindings for winner and windmove, Gregor Zattler, 2024/06/24
- Re: Proposal: new default bindings for winner and windmove, Daniel Colascione, 2024/06/24