Re: C-x C-q more useful as toggle-read-only

[Greg A. Woods]

[ On , October 25, 2000 at 17:47:22 (+0200), Francesco Potorti` wrote: ]
> Subject: Re: C-x C-q more useful as toggle-read-only
>
> The real truth is that C-xC-q and VC should have nothing to do with
> each other, except possibly as an expert option, as Michael J Downes
> correctly points out.

This is exactly right.  Overloading of C-xC-q is *not* something that
should be done by default.  VC experts can do it if they want, and VC
can provide a simple option to make this easy for them.

The current state of C-xC-q has never been useful for me in any
situation, and indeed it has gotten in my way several times in the
past despite the fact I rarely use it.

Oddly enough though the only thing I've got in my ~/.emacs up until now
has been:

  ;; this was suggested by Kevin Rodgers <kevinr@ihs.com>:
  (global-set-key "\C-xvq" 'vc-toggle-read-only)

That's probably because I've also had my fingers more or less trained to
do the following for far longer than I've ever used GNU Emacs (which is
part of a set of bindings I've carried around to avoid collisions with
silly things like software flow control):

  (global-set-key "\C-x\C-^" 'toggle-read-only)

The use of `C-^' seems more intuitive for toggle-read-only too.  It has
far more symbolic and semantic meanings from various other contexts that
are much better than anything related to `C-q', even without taking into
consideration the potential clash with software flow control.

>  I *always* use C-xvv, which is more natural and intuitive with me.

As do I.

-- 
                                                        Greg A. Woods

+1 416 218-0098      VE3TCP      <gwoods@acm.org>      <robohack!woods>
Planix, Inc. <woods@planix.com>; Secrets of the Weird <woods@weird.com>