[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: C-p, C-b, C-f, and C-n... why?
From: |
Stefan Monnier |
Subject: |
Re: C-p, C-b, C-f, and C-n... why? |
Date: |
Thu, 15 Dec 2005 01:15:21 -0500 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.0.50 (gnu/linux) |
>> > There are several ways you can do this. You can use the arrow keys,
>> > but it's more efficient to keep your hands in the standard position
>> > and use the commands C-p, C-b, C-f, and C-n. These characters
>> > are equivalent to the four arrow keys, like this:
>>
>> I think phrases like "but it's more efficient" is a bit dangerous. I'd
>> rather want something like "but some feel it's more efficient". It all
>> depends on the user, his keyboard, his habits etc.
> I have yet to see a keyboard with arrow keys close to the rest of the
> keys. They are always somewhere on the fringes. So, habits aside,
> the distance to C-f is shorter than to the right arrow key, and that
> is an objective fact. Of course, people might prefer a less efficient
> way, e.g., if they type so slowly that the additional time is
> negligible.
That's beside the point: in some contexts arrows are more efficient, and in
some contexts control keys are more efficient. Claiming that control keys
are objectively always superior is just silly, so I agree that we should at
least add a "generally" between "it's" and "more". I'd also add an "of
course" between "you can" and "use the arrow keys" and an "in the long run"
after "more efficient":
There are several ways you can do this. You can of course use the arrow
keys, but it's generally more efficient in the long run to keep your
hands in the standard position and use the commands C-p, C-b, C-f, and
C-n. These characters are equivalent to the four arrow keys, like this:
-- Stefan
- Re: C-p, C-b, C-f, and C-n... why?, (continued)
- Re: C-p, C-b, C-f, and C-n... why?, Lennart Borgman, 2005/12/12
- Re: C-p, C-b, C-f, and C-n... why?, Tim Johnson, 2005/12/12
- Message not available
- Re: C-p, C-b, C-f, and C-n... why?, Mathias Dahl, 2005/12/13
- Re: C-p, C-b, C-f, and C-n... why?, Ralf Angeli, 2005/12/13
- Re: C-p, C-b, C-f, and C-n... why?, Tim Johnson, 2005/12/13
- Re: C-p, C-b, C-f, and C-n... why?, Eli Zaretskii, 2005/12/13
- Re: C-p, C-b, C-f, and C-n... why?, Björn Lindström, 2005/12/15
- Re: C-p, C-b, C-f, and C-n... why?, Xavier Maillard, 2005/12/15
- Re: C-p, C-b, C-f, and C-n... why?, don provan, 2005/12/17
- Message not available
- Re: C-p, C-b, C-f, and C-n... why?, Mathias Dahl, 2005/12/19
- Message not available
- Re: C-p, C-b, C-f, and C-n... why?,
Stefan Monnier <=
- Re: C-p, C-b, C-f, and C-n... why?, Mathias Dahl, 2005/12/15
- Re: C-p, C-b, C-f, and C-n... why?, Per Abrahamsen, 2005/12/15
- RE: C-p, C-b, C-f, and C-n... why?, Drew Adams, 2005/12/15
- Re: C-p, C-b, C-f, and C-n... why?, Mathias Dahl, 2005/12/15
- Re: C-p, C-b, C-f, and C-n... why?, Lennart Borgman, 2005/12/15
- Re: C-p, C-b, C-f, and C-n... why?, Lennart Borgman, 2005/12/15
- Re: C-p, C-b, C-f, and C-n... why?, Xavier Maillard, 2005/12/15
- Re: C-p, C-b, C-f, and C-n... why?, Lennart Borgman, 2005/12/15
- Re: C-p, C-b, C-f, and C-n... why?, Richard M. Stallman, 2005/12/16
- Re: C-p, C-b, C-f, and C-n... why?, Eli Zaretskii, 2005/12/15