From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Sebastien Vauban" Subject: Re: org-mode + icicles, avoid key binding redefinitions? Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2014 11:35:33 +0100 Message-ID: <86bnyv2hze.fsf@somewhere.org> References: <87ob33nnwi.fsf@bzg.ath.cx> <87eh3yvgyg.fsf@bzg.ath.cx> <3bc3c5a1-1c3f-4975-9dd6-3428aabb69be@default> <87ppniu06o.fsf@bzg.ath.cx> <1c11f795-ca4a-45bf-9701-7645a0609ed1@default> <87lhy6l4k4.fsf@bzg.ath.cx> <87d2jh93jb.fsf@bzg.ath.cx> <87bnywtqx4.fsf@bzg.ath.cx> <86lhxz6uw8.fsf@somewhere.org> <87lhxzt9dy.fsf@bzg.ath.cx> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Return-path: List-Id: "General discussions about Org-mode." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org-mXXj517/zsQ@public.gmane.org Sender: emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org-mXXj517/zsQ@public.gmane.org To: emacs-orgmode-mXXj517/zsQ@public.gmane.org Bastien, Bastien wrote: > "Sebastien Vauban" writes: > >> What about `C-c {' and such in the tables? > > (FWIW, that's one of the few keybindings I would not like to change.) > >> I guess it's better to comply to the Emacs guidelines. That change will >> allow us to wake up our neurons and fight against Alzheimer. So, let's >> do it. > > Thanks for your feedback -- that said, maybe the move is to big > compared to the real issue at stake. I'd rather make this move > minimalist by just rebinding those keybindings that are not *that* > into our memories (e.g. C-c # ... ) Personally, I'd opt for a "all-or-none" switch. If you only do some, we can't rely on "just add another C-" to get the right key binding. I have the impression we'll never know which ones were migrated, and which ones weren't. In the case you don't intend to move 'em all, I'd stay with the current config, then. Is it really important to have a couple less of "not standard" key bindings, if we still have others which don't comply? Best regards, Seb -- Sebastien Vauban