From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Benjamin Andresen Subject: Re: POLL: Change of keys to move agenda through time Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2009 11:26:24 +0200 Message-ID: <87skfgxn0f.fsf@gmail.com> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1MfsIf-0001jG-Gr for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Tue, 25 Aug 2009 05:26:45 -0400 Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1MfsIY-0001Zp-6n for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Tue, 25 Aug 2009 05:26:42 -0400 Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=44253 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1MfsIX-0001ZI-Su for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Tue, 25 Aug 2009 05:26:37 -0400 Received: from mx20.gnu.org ([199.232.41.8]:2127) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS-1.0:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1MfsIX-0004X4-IC for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Tue, 25 Aug 2009 05:26:37 -0400 Received: from mail-ew0-f211.google.com ([209.85.219.211]) by mx20.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1MfsIW-0000Gm-12 for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Tue, 25 Aug 2009 05:26:36 -0400 Received: by ewy7 with SMTP id 7so3123020ewy.31 for ; Tue, 25 Aug 2009 02:26:33 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: (Carsten Dominik's message of "Tue, 25 Aug 2009 11:12:16 +0200") List-Id: "General discussions about Org-mode." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org@gnu.org To: org-mode Mailinglist Carsten Dominik writes: > Hi, > > we have the proposal to do the following key changes in the agenda: > > 1. Make the cursor keys LEFT and RIGHT do normal cursor motion again > 2. Use the keys "n" and "p" to switch the agenda to earlier > and later dates. But "n" and "p" are already used to move up and down entries in the org-agenda. Where would they go to then? I personally use M-n and M-p to move earlier/later. > Should we make this change? yes or no? No from me. :-) br, benny