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

>> 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.


Lasciate ogni speranza o voi che entrate: siete nella mani di'machellaio

Reply via email to