Hi, Nicolas Goaziou <m...@nicolasgoaziou.fr> writes:
>> I—obviously—think what I propose is better than what we have now. Let's >> go through the current functionality. > > In this case I value simplicity over complexity (or "smartness", > whatever you call it). Anyone, including newcomers, should be able to > use M-RET without knowing about (affiliated) keywords, or be bothered > with them. "Newcomers" ain't stupid. My guess is it would feel very intuitive to be able to repeat e.g. LATEX_HEADINGs. > Also, headlines are first-class citizens in Org. Keybindings acting on > them shouldn't be bothered with other citizens. But "* #+LATEX_HEADER: \usepackage{foo}" or whatever is possibly the most useless headline in the history of Org. . . >> I don't find it complicated at all. . . It's DWIM! > > I understand your DWIM argument. But we're talking about one of the most > central keybindings in Org, much like C-c C-c. Except I do not consider > C-c C-c as a usability model. Also, C-c C-c is not really dedicated to > headlines. I guess I mainly use C-c C-c for tags. I don't know what else it's used for (without looking at the code). . . >> The fact that `org-table-wrap-region' is bound to M-RET is the reason >> I'd bind `org-insert-keyword' to M-RET. . . > > I really don't understand the reason behind binding > `org-table-wrap-region' > (how often do you use that?) on M-RET. Very rarely. I obviously use M-RET all the time for items and headlines. `org-table-wrap-region' seems like a solution looking for a problem. >> Anyway, do we have /another/ key that these two functions could be >> migrated to? > > There is `org-table-copy-down' bound to S-RET. The idea is similar. That seems less crowded. In fact it doesn't work outside of tables ATM. Still, I think overload M-RET is more intuitive, but I fear our opinions will fail to converge. —Rasmus -- Lasciate ogni speranza o voi che entrate: siete nella mani di'machellaio