[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: one shortcut next occurrence search
From: |
Drew Adams |
Subject: |
RE: one shortcut next occurrence search |
Date: |
Fri, 24 Dec 2010 08:39:35 -0800 |
> I didn't know about the "C-h b". What's the difference? Why I have
> to type "C-c C-h", "C-x C-h", etc. but "C-s C-h" does not work whilst
> "C-s C-h b" does?
Someone(TM)'s infinite wisdom. See my earlier message.
> Funnily enough, according to "C-h c", "C-c C-h" and "C-x C-h" are not
> bound to anything, neither is "C-h" alone (it is a prefix key).
Yes, things like `C-c' are sometimes handled specially to get the `C-h'
behavior. `C-h' does not show up on the keymap (which in the case of `C-c' is
`mode-specific-map'). Try `C-h M-k' and you will see.
- Re: one shortcut next occurrence search, (continued)
Message not available
Message not availableRe: one shortcut next occurrence search, Elena, 2010/12/24
Re: one shortcut next occurrence search, Elena, 2010/12/24
RE: one shortcut next occurrence search,
Drew Adams <=
Message not availableRe: one shortcut next occurrence search, Richard Riley, 2010/12/24
Re: one shortcut next occurrence search, Teemu Likonen, 2010/12/25
Re: one shortcut next occurrence search, Bob Proulx, 2010/12/25
Re: one shortcut next occurrence search, Elena, 2010/12/23
Re: one shortcut next occurrence search, LanX, 2010/12/23