From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Nick Dokos Subject: Re: Re: Poll: Who is using these commands Date: Sun, 09 May 2010 11:59:20 -0400 Message-ID: <3634.1273420760@gamaville.dokosmarshall.org> References: <20100508202159.GA32505@taupan.ath.cx> <4BE5DF9C.909@gmail.com> <245881E6-B69D-4E6F-A1B1-C4EFA39AF7BC@gmail.com> Reply-To: nicholas.dokos@hp.com Return-path: Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1OB8um-0003nx-2x for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Sun, 09 May 2010 11:59:36 -0400 Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=57228 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1OB8uk-0003nI-Lv for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Sun, 09 May 2010 11:59:35 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OB8ui-0001jR-U8 for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Sun, 09 May 2010 11:59:34 -0400 Received: from vms173019pub.verizon.net ([206.46.173.19]:34373) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OB8ui-0001jA-Qu for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Sun, 09 May 2010 11:59:32 -0400 Received: from gamaville.dokosmarshall.org ([unknown] [173.76.32.106]) by vms173019.mailsrvcs.net (Sun Java(tm) System Messaging Server 7u2-7.02 32bit (built Apr 16 2009)) with ESMTPA id <0L250060UTQWPUYA@vms173019.mailsrvcs.net> for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Sun, 09 May 2010 10:59:20 -0500 (CDT) In-reply-to: Message from Leo of "Sun, 09 May 2010 15:26:35 BST." 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: Leo Cc: nicholas.dokos@hp.com, emacs-orgmode@gnu.org Leo wrote: > On 2010-05-09 12:43 +0100, Carsten Dominik wrote: > > what do you think about C-M-f, C-M-b, C-M-n, C-M-p as alternative > > bindings? These seem to make *a lot* of sense, because, as many here > > have pointed out, they are so much better repeatable (Keep C-M- down, > > press the character.) > > It is terrible idea to override these parenthesis movement bindings. > They are universal in all editing modes that if overridden people who > also use other emacs packages will be surprised. For example to move > from a open parenthesis to a closing parenthesis. > I disagree: they are not parenthesis movement bindings - they are structure-navigation bindings. For example, C-M-f is forward-sexp. In lisp, an sexp has some relationship to parentheses, but it is incidental; in other programming modes, an sexp is whatever makes sense in that language and these commands are redefined appropriately. I think it is entirely appropriate to use these bindings to navigate structure in org-mode as well. My 2 cents, Nick