[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Emacs terminology (not again!?) [was: Apologia for bzr]
From: |
David Kastrup |
Subject: |
Re: Emacs terminology (not again!?) [was: Apologia for bzr] |
Date: |
Thu, 09 Jan 2014 20:38:38 +0100 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.3.50 (gnu/linux) |
Tom <address@hidden> writes:
> David Kastrup <dak <at> gnu.org> writes:
>>
>> It's more like "it's unavoidable to provide difficulties to learning
>> because it can do a lot, and when a lot is easily accessible, you'll
>> have stuff getting in your hair accidentally".
>
> Arbitrary roadblocks can be removed, though.
>
> For example, yank is not a superior term to paste, so paste could be
> used instead. One unnecessary difference less.
You mean, unnecessary similarity. This has a C-y keyboard binding, and
vi uses y and Y bindings for yanking as well.
> Emacs provides enough material to learn without these arbitrary
> (legacy) differences, so these should be eliminated where possible.
The problem is that they are not "arbitrary" but deeply ingrained into
the choice of keyboard sequences. And C-x and C-c are pretty much the
most reliably accessible control characters, so they make good sense for
starting multiple keystroke sequences.
What _is_ somewhat annoying in contrast is the positioning of C-b C-n
C-p and C-f. The hjkl sequences of vi or C-s C-x C-e C-d sequences of
WordStar make more sense.
--
David Kastrup
- Re: Emacs terminology (not again!?) [was: Apologia for bzr], (continued)
- Re: Apologia for bzr, Jose E. Marchesi, 2014/01/07
- Re: Apologia for bzr, Per Starbäck, 2014/01/09
- RE: Emacs terminology (not again!?) [was: Apologia for bzr], Drew Adams, 2014/01/09
- Re: Emacs terminology (not again!?) [was: Apologia for bzr], Per Starbäck, 2014/01/09
- RE: Emacs terminology (not again!?) [was: Apologia for bzr], Drew Adams, 2014/01/09
- Re: Emacs terminology (not again!?) [was: Apologia for bzr], Per Starbäck, 2014/01/09
- Re: Emacs terminology (not again!?) [was: Apologia for bzr], David Kastrup, 2014/01/09
- Re: Emacs terminology (not again!?) [was: Apologia for bzr], Tom, 2014/01/09
- Re: Emacs terminology (not again!?) [was: Apologia for bzr],
David Kastrup <=
- Re: Emacs terminology (not again!?) [was: Apologia for bzr], Davis Herring, 2014/01/10
- Re: Emacs terminology (not again!?) [was: Apologia for bzr], David Kastrup, 2014/01/10
- RE: Emacs terminology (not again!?) [was: Apologia for bzr], Drew Adams, 2014/01/09
- Re: Emacs terminology (not again!?) [was: Apologia for bzr], Richard Stallman, 2014/01/10
- Re: Emacs terminology (not again!?) [was: Apologia for bzr], Per Starbäck, 2014/01/17
- Re: Emacs terminology (not again!?) [was: Apologia for bzr], David Kastrup, 2014/01/17
- Re: Emacs terminology (not again!?), Glenn Morris, 2014/01/17
- Re: Emacs terminology (not again!?), Lennart Borgman, 2014/01/17
- Re: Emacs terminology (not again!?), Daniel Colascione, 2014/01/17
- Re: Emacs terminology (not again!?), Lennart Borgman, 2014/01/17