>>>>> "RW" == Robert Widhopf-Fenk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
RW> Well it is unemacsish, but inconvenient and confusing?
If it is unemacsish then it is inconvenient and confusing ;-).
RW> We could argue a lot on that, actually I added them as they are
RW> convenient and intuitive, at least to me.
Seriously, a typical Emacs user doesn't expect arrow keys performing
non-movement actions. It's OK if you feel those bindings convenient,
but make them optional, bound only when explicitly requested. An
important Emacs feature is that it tries to be "safe" and nonaggressive
to a user by default. Advanced, possibly confusing features, are always
optional.
RW> Then ALSO up/down should be unbound, as they are not moving
RW> up/down a line but to the next item?
No, I can't see any serious problem with it, since they are movement
commands and standard things like dired or the completion buffer work in
a similar way.
RW> IMHO would be more convenient to allow a binding copying the
RW> THING at point to the kill-ring, no need for you to set the
RW> mark, move around and add it to the kill-ring.
It might be convenient and I'd like to have it, but anyway a user should
be allowed to perform killing (and other common commands) in the same
way as in any other read only buffer. Another nice Emacs feature is
that you always work with buffers and can operate on all of them in the
same way. User interface unification is a very important Emacs feature.
Regards,
Milan Zamazal
--
SomeProgrammersLikeWritingLikeThis.However,IDontThinkThisFormOfCommunicationIs\
AGoodIdea.IApologizeToAllWhoCantReadMyTextsWrittenInATraditionalStyle.
