Re: Re: Poll: Who is using these commands

[Carsten Dominik <carsten.dominik@gmail.com>]

On May 9, 2010, at 9:00 PM, Dan Davison wrote:

> Nick Dokos <nicholas.dokos@hp.com> writes:
>
>> Leo <sdl.web@gmail.com> 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.
>
> I basically agree. However, the proposed mapping between SEXP movement
> commands in programming modes and in org-mode seems rather loose:
>
> Presumably the intended mapping is
>
> C-c C-n <--> C-M-n   "n command"
> C-c C-f <--> C-M-f   "f command"
>
> That suggests that the n command in Org-mode should skip over the next
> subtree, like forward-list; however, it advances over a body to the
> start of the next subtree.
>
> In fact, isn't there an argument that the Org bindings are the wrong  
> way
> round?  If we define in Org-mode:
>
> - atom :: the body of a heading
> - SEXP :: an atom, or a subtree
>
> then the n command in Org-mode currently behaves a bit like forward- 
> sexp
> (C-M-f) , whereas the f command in Org-mode behaves a bit like
> forward-list (C-M-n).

Hi Dan,

good observation, I had not realized this.

Hmmmmmm.  We are not there yet.

- Carsten