From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Bastien <bzg@altern.org>
Subject: Re: counter-intuitive key bindings
Date: Sat, 28 Jul 2007 13:43:49 +0200
Message-ID: <87ejisycqy.fsf@bzg.ath.cx>
References: <m2y7h0pykt.fsf@cam.ac.uk>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Return-path: <emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org@gnu.org>
Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1IEkiA-0007SG-JM
	for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Sat, 28 Jul 2007 07:43:54 -0400
Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1IEkiA-0007S4-7u
	for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Sat, 28 Jul 2007 07:43:54 -0400
Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IEkiA-0007S1-56
	for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Sat, 28 Jul 2007 07:43:54 -0400
Received: from hu-out-0506.google.com ([72.14.214.228])
	by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60)
	(envelope-from <bastienguerry@googlemail.com>) id 1IEki9-00064w-Ow
	for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Sat, 28 Jul 2007 07:43:53 -0400
Received: by hu-out-0506.google.com with SMTP id 23so486717huc
	for <emacs-orgmode@gnu.org>; Sat, 28 Jul 2007 04:43:52 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <m2y7h0pykt.fsf@cam.ac.uk> (Leo's message of "Sat\, 28 Jul 2007
	12\:17\:06 +0100")
List-Id: "General discussions about Org-mode." <emacs-orgmode.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-orgmode>,
	<mailto:emacs-orgmode-request@gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.gnu.org/pipermail/emacs-orgmode>
List-Post: <mailto:emacs-orgmode@gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:emacs-orgmode-request@gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-orgmode>,
	<mailto:emacs-orgmode-request@gnu.org?subject=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

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.)

Regards,

-- 
Bastien