Re: Feeling lost without tabs

[Emanuel Berg]

Javier <nospam@nospam.com> writes:

>> I don't like your taste in keys (the function and
>> arrow keys) because of the reach thing I've talked
>> about many times, but cred for not only writing
>> Elisp but also sharing it for everyone to see/use!
>
> [Shift+left/right arrows] is just analogous with the
> way you move between virtual ttys in Linux:
> [Alt+Left/right arrow].  In the window manager I use
> [WindowsKey+arrows] to move between virtual desktops.

I still don't think it is good. I have changed that for
the ttys to M-j and M-l (using the Emacs notation), and
set it up in X as well (by way of .xbindkeysrc) - check
it out:

http://user.it.uu.se/~embe8573/conf/remap.inc

> C-Tab and C-S-Tab are another obvious choice; they
> would move between emacs frames in the same way as
> you move between firefox tabs.

TAB is good but your keys are bulky. TAB alone, M-TAB,
and S-TAB (backtab) are good.

> (setq pop-up-frames t) is for never having the frame
> split in two windows.  Having two windows in the same
> frame is the default emacs behaviour and may be ok
> for very big screens, but for a small screen with a
> big font is not good.

What? I restrict my use to two windows because I have
very few lines and very few columns compared to modern
users (27 $LINES and 72 $COLUMNS). "Normal" people with
desktops with huge widescreens and minimal fonts
usually have like ten windows at the same time.

> In any case, all these things are a matter of
> personal taste, and fortunately emacs gives a lot of
> freedom to the user to configure them.  No other
> program out there gets even close to give the freedom
> emacs gives.

I don't know if it is a matter of giving freedom, but
the Emacs architecture with Lisp and all, the result is
what you indicate. Yes, all software should be like
that...

-- 
underground experts united