From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Andreas Leha Subject: Re: org-mode + icicles, avoid key binding redefinitions? Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2014 21:06:39 +0100 Message-ID: <87wqhid034.fsf@med.uni-goettingen.de> 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> <52E8E982.6070701@miszellen.de> <87k3dj6i88.fsf@gmail.com> <87y51y6gk8.fsf@bzg.ath.cx> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:47735) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1W8bPX-0008B4-Gi for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Wed, 29 Jan 2014 15:07:08 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1W8bPR-0007UG-9X for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Wed, 29 Jan 2014 15:06:59 -0500 Received: from plane.gmane.org ([80.91.229.3]:33309) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1W8bPR-0007U7-2L for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Wed, 29 Jan 2014 15:06:53 -0500 Received: from list by plane.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1W8bPP-0001J6-5n for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Wed, 29 Jan 2014 21:06:51 +0100 Received: from vpn-2101.gwdg.de ([134.76.2.101]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Wed, 29 Jan 2014 21:06:51 +0100 Received: from andreas.leha by vpn-2101.gwdg.de with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Wed, 29 Jan 2014 21:06:51 +0100 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@gnu.org Sender: emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org@gnu.org To: emacs-orgmode@gnu.org Bastien writes: > Hi Nick, > > Nick Dokos writes: > >> I find myself more in agreement with Seb than with Bastien here. The >> argument that reducing the number of "bad" bindings reduces the chance >> of conflicts does not hold water IMO: we will always have to be looking >> in the rear-view mirror for some minor mode that will step on us. > > In the last ten years, we had only *one* such problem while having a > dozen of faulty keybindings --- my hope is that, with only a fistful > of faulty keybindings, we won't have to look in the rear-view mirror > for the next twenty years :) [IOW: I don't buy the all-or-nothing > reasoning.] > I might be missing something here. But I think it would not be a problem for Bastien (and others with similar preferences) to rebind the keys to the shorter and potentially problematic version. So to me it seems, that the only problem with making the default keybindings less 'offensive' is finding non-taken and non-offensive keybindings. The question is whether Org could do something to make rebinding keys easier? Like a worg page / FAQ about 'getting the old keybindings back', maybe? Just my 2ct, of course. - Andreas > More precisely, I suggest these rebindings: > > C-c # Checkboxes => C-c C-# > C-c , Priorities => C-c C-, > C-c ; Comment lines => C-c C-; > C-c @ Mark subtree => C-c C-@ > > (Note they are also accessible through speedy keys.) > > C-c ~ Cooperation => C-c C-~ > > (This one I just discovered.) > > Let's not get trapped in a "buridanesque" decision. :)