Re: counter-intuitive key bindings

[Carsten Dominik <dominik@science.uva.nl>]

On Jul 28, 2007, at 14:52, Adam Spiers wrote:

> On Sat, Jul 28, 2007 at 12:17:06PM +0100, Leo wrote:
>> (info "(org)Multiple sets in one file")
>> | `C-S-<right>'
>> | `C-S-<left>'
>> |      These keys jump from one TODO subset to the next.  In the above
>> |      example, `C-S-<right>' would jump from `TODO' or `DONE' to
>> |      `REPORT', and any of the words in the second row to `CANCELED'.
>>
>> These key bindings are to move from one set of the TODO items to
>> another, which intuitively are a vertical motion. See this configure:
>>
>> |      (setq org-todo-keywords
>> |            '((sequence "TODO" "|" "DONE")
>> |              (sequence "REPORT" "BUG" "KNOWNCAUSE" "|" "FIXED")
>> |              (sequence "|" "CANCELED")))
>>
>> I would propose to change these key bindings to:
>>
>>    C-S-<up/down>
>
> Agreed, this is more logical, although the modified cursor key
> bindings are always going to be contended.  Personally I have a
> "global" standard set of key bindings for outline navigation and
> editing which applies across several modes: folding-mode, org-mode,
> outline-minor-mode (and allout), orgstruct-mode.  Having to remember
> different bindings for how to hide/reveal/zoom to a subtree in each
> mode is a nightmare.  I would love to see some standardization here
> with more mode authors talking to each other.
>
> On a related topic, if I have S-{left,right} on my org-disputed-keys
> list, this breaks using them for changing a timestamp by one-day
> increments, even though I don't consider that a clashing binding.  I
> guess I am arguing that this is a minor bug with `org-key' being too
> indiscriminate in when it filters bindings.

Why do you then have these keys on your list?  What are you
using them for?  How is org-mode supposed to know in what
situations you don't what org-mode to use them?

- Carsten