[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Key-binding clash between gnus and calc
From: |
Sascha Wilde |
Subject: |
Re: Key-binding clash between gnus and calc |
Date: |
Thu, 17 Nov 2005 10:51:19 +0100 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.0.50 (gnu/linux) |
Miles Bader <address@hidden> wrote:
> 2005/11/17, Juri Linkov <address@hidden>:
>> I doubt that `M-#' in gnus is used too much, because it has one
>> inconvenience which is not fixed for a long time. Unlike `#' which
>> advances to the next article, `M-#' stays on the same article.
>
> Unmarking commands in Gnus follow a fairly regular pattern -- if key
> "foo" marks, then "M-foo" unmarks. This correspondence is _extremely_
> useful, because one uses unmarking commands more rarely than the
> corresponding marking command, so a regular naming convention makes it
> easy to remember what they're bound to.
I agree, that the correspondence is quite use full, but I also do
agree with Juri, that the slightly different behavior of M-# is
extremely inconvenient. IMO this should be fixed, by making M-#
advance to (like M-u does!).
[...]
>> There is another key binding in gnus that conflicts with the global
>> key binding. It is `M-g'.
>
> Yeah, so what? Another notable non-tragedy.
I agree, in this special case, that it is not tragic:
Global Bindings Starting With M-g:
key binding
--- -------
M-g p previous-error
M-g n next-error
M-g g goto-line
M-g ESC Prefix Command
M-g M-p previous-error
M-g M-n next-error
M-g M-g goto-line
previous-error and next-error just don't make any sense in gnus. (In
fact, I'm not sure why they are global bindings anyway.) And
goto-line isn't particularly use full in gnus buffers either.
BUT, in general I think, that Emacs as a whole should be as consistent
as possible. That is one reason why global bindings should be
approved by Richard, and I thin that is a good thing[tm]. ;-)
cheers
sascha
--
>++++++[<+++++++++++>-]<+.>+++[<++++++>-]<.---.---------.++++++.++++.---------
-.+++++++++++.+++++.>+++++++[<-------->-]<-.>++++++[<+++++++>-]<+.--.+++..----
---.-.>++++++[<------>-]<.>++++[<+++++++++++++>-]<.------------.---.>++++++[<-
----->-]<-.>+++++[<+++++++>-]<.--.>+++[<++++++>-]<+.>++++++++[<--------->-]<--.
- Re: Key-binding clash between gnus and calc, (continued)
- Re: Key-binding clash between gnus and calc, Jay Belanger, 2005/11/15
- Re: Key-binding clash between gnus and calc, Richard M. Stallman, 2005/11/15
- Re: Key-binding clash between gnus and calc, Sascha Wilde, 2005/11/16
- Re: Key-binding clash between gnus and calc, Juri Linkov, 2005/11/19
- Re: Key-binding clash between gnus and calc, Sascha Wilde, 2005/11/20
- Re: Key-binding clash between gnus and calc, Juri Linkov, 2005/11/20
- Re: Key-binding clash between gnus and calc, Andreas Schwab, 2005/11/20
- Re: Key-binding clash between gnus and calc, Juri Linkov, 2005/11/17
- Re: Key-binding clash between gnus and calc, Miles Bader, 2005/11/17
- Re: Key-binding clash between gnus and calc,
Sascha Wilde <=
- Re: Key-binding clash between gnus and calc, Miles Bader, 2005/11/17
- Re: Key-binding clash between gnus and calc, Andreas Schwab, 2005/11/17
- Re: Key-binding clash between gnus and calc, Juri Linkov, 2005/11/19
- Re: Key-binding clash between gnus and calc, Kevin Greiner, 2005/11/20
- Re: Key-binding clash between gnus and calc, Juri Linkov, 2005/11/21
- Re: Key-binding clash between gnus and calc, Richard M. Stallman, 2005/11/18
- Re: Key-binding clash between gnus and calc, Juri Linkov, 2005/11/22