From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Ken Harris Subject: C-a and C-e in org-mode Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2009 13:58:32 -0800 Message-ID: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1LSIQk-0005W6-Qg for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Wed, 28 Jan 2009 16:58:42 -0500 Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1LSIQi-0005U0-Pm for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Wed, 28 Jan 2009 16:58:42 -0500 Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=38016 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1LSIQi-0005Tr-Ee for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Wed, 28 Jan 2009 16:58:40 -0500 Received: from mail-ew0-f20.google.com ([209.85.219.20]:34021) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1LSIQh-0005ls-Vp for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Wed, 28 Jan 2009 16:58:40 -0500 Received: by ewy13 with SMTP id 13so3733800ewy.18 for ; Wed, 28 Jan 2009 13:58:32 -0800 (PST) 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: emacs-orgmode@gnu.org Hello, org-mode! I've been using org-mode recently, and overall it's pretty nice, but one thing doesn't seem to work quite right. I have org-special-ctrl-a/e set to nil (the default, I think). I think this means that C-e should work just like normal. Unfortunately, C-u C-e fails with "Wrong type argument: integerp, (4)". If I use an explicit prefix (like C-u 4 C-e) it works fine. It's been a while since I've written any Emacs Lisp, but I guess (4) is the default prefix argument and end-of-line doesn't know how to parse that when coming in as a normal arg. This is probably an easy fix (and maybe I'll write a patch later, if I have some spare time). C-a seems to always go to the start-of-line, regardless of the prefix argument (implicit or explicit). That looks like a slightly deeper problem. Anyway, thanks for the neat mode! - Ken