From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Adam Spiers Subject: Re: Free `1' and `0' keys from the org-agenda interface ? Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2007 18:39:53 +0100 Message-ID: <20071016173953.GB32678@atlantic.linksys.moosehall> References: <87ejfvm0s3.fsf@bzg.ath.cx> <20071016163144.GE3018@atlantic.linksys.moosehall> <87wstnkkt0.fsf@bzg.ath.cx> Reply-To: Adam Spiers 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 1IhqOa-0004Qt-Cd for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Tue, 16 Oct 2007 13:39:56 -0400 Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1IhqOZ-0004Q8-NE for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Tue, 16 Oct 2007 13:39:55 -0400 Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IhqOZ-0004Q4-HZ for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Tue, 16 Oct 2007 13:39:55 -0400 Received: from mail.beimborn.com ([70.84.38.100]) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS-1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1IhqOY-0000mt-WF for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Tue, 16 Oct 2007 13:39:55 -0400 Received: from mail.beimborn.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mail.beimborn.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.8) with ESMTP id l9GHdr1a013305 for ; Tue, 16 Oct 2007 12:39:53 -0500 Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by mail.beimborn.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11/Submit) id l9GHdrxc013300 for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Tue, 16 Oct 2007 18:39:53 +0100 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <87wstnkkt0.fsf@bzg.ath.cx> 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 On Tue, Oct 16, 2007 at 06:53:47PM +0100, Bastien wrote: > Adam Spiers writes: > > > I'm curious about your suggestion of '<<' though - does that imply the > > sub-keymap functionality I asked for already exists? > > I first thought yes, since it looks like the first `<' keystroke is > waiting for the next one (at least from the description I proposed). > > But in fact there is no sub-keymap involved here: it's only about > cycling through three states: > > - not-restricted > - buffer-restricted > - subtree/region-resctricted > > Then three keystrokes would turn off the restriction. > > But calling a sub-keymap with `<' could also be useful: > > `< <' : cycle through default restricted states (see above) Hmm, that doubles the number of keypresses to achieve a given state, which is a bit cumbersome. But if it's customizable, who cares? :-)