Re: Re: counter-intuitive key bindings

From: Carsten Dominik <dominik@science.uva.nl>
To: Leo <sdl.web@gmail.com>
Cc: emacs-orgmode@gnu.org
Subject: Re: Re: counter-intuitive key bindings
Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2007 07:05:50 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <b65f0b9282243b4129f9ef4a100ac2d9@science.uva.nl> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <m2abtgpeai.fsf@cam.ac.uk>

On Jul 28, 2007, at 20:35, Leo wrote:

> On 2007-07-28 12:43 +0100, Bastien wrote:
>> Leo <sdl.web@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>>> These key bindings are to move from one set of the TODO items to
>>> another, which intuitively are a vertical motion.
>>
>> Well, I don't share this intuition.
>>
>> Since S-<left/right> cycles through TODO states, it's consistent to 
>> use
>> C-S-<left/right> to cycle through TODO-states sets.
>>
>> And since S-<up/down> changes the priority state, i guess 
>> C-S-<up/down>
>> could cycle through *priority-states sets* - if any. (I actually have 
>> no
>> idea whether priority-states sets would be useful to someone.)
>
> In this case, I feel there should a consistent definition of key
> bindings. One excellent example is vc, it is just so easy to remember.

What do you mean with "consistent definition of key bindings".

> I have been an regular user of org, and I have already forgotten that
> S-up/down does priority change after one month's break.

I have been trying very hard to make the key bindings as logical
as possible - but there is a huge amount of commands in org,
and many keys are needed.

That said, the S-up/down for priorities does leas to a couple
of inconsistencies, in particular between agenda and org-mode buffers.

- Carsten

>
> -- 
> Leo <sdl.web AT gmail.com>                         (GPG Key: 9283AA3F)
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Emacs-orgmode mailing list
> Emacs-orgmode@gnu.org
> http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-orgmode
>
>

--
Carsten Dominik
Sterrenkundig Instituut "Anton Pannekoek"
Universiteit van Amsterdam
Kruislaan 403
NL-1098SJ Amsterdam
phone: +31 20 525 7477