On Tuesday, May 25, 2004 at 11:51:00, Stefan Reichör wrote: > Hi Milan! > > > Please don't use arrow keys for non-movement commands in xtla > > major modes. This is very unemacsish, inconvenient and confusing.
Well it is unemacsish, but inconvenient and confusing? We could argue a lot on that, actually I added them as they are convenient and intuitive, at least to me. > > For instance, I run `M-x tla-archives' and want to copy an archive > > name to the kill ring. So I try to move with arrow keys to the > > name and oops, pressing <right> starts network connection to fetch > > the archive categories and pops new window. If I liked to see the > > categories, I would press Enter. Why to bind it additionally to > > another key? The same applies to <left> there. > > I don't like them also. > What do others think? > > Robert, I think you introduced that kind of bindings. Yeah it was me. I never had a need to copy the archive name or something else (: and when I would use forward-word and backward-word or the like not left/right :) and in the other cases I use the mouse to have it in the xselection buffer. Felt it was much more convenient than ^ (you need to press two key on an American keyboard), RET, n and p, since the cursor keys are all at the same location and thus made browsing of (local) archives much faster. Then ALSO up/down should be unbound, as they are not moving up/down a line but to the next item? IMHO would be more convenient to allow a binding copying the THING at point to the kill-ring, no need for you to set the mark, move around and add it to the kill-ring. > It would be o.k. to have an user option (default: nil) for that kind > of bindings: tla-use-arrow-keys-for-navigation Sounds reasonable, but isn't it something like a micro-theme for bindings breaking your demand for On , May 24, 2004 at 21:21:13, Stefan Reichör wrote: [...] > I think, we should define only ONE consistent binding scheme! ;c) Robert
