[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: C-x C-v considered harmful
From: |
Miles Bader |
Subject: |
Re: C-x C-v considered harmful |
Date: |
Sat, 04 Jul 2009 05:56:21 +0900 |
Richard Stallman <address@hidden> writes:
> Miles, if you had to type
> C-x k RET C-x C-f M-p instead of C-x C-v,
> in those cases, how painful would that be?
It would be a bit more annoying of course, but it's very hard to
estimate how much. I'd probably live.
Of course, since I rebind find-file and find-alternate-file anyway, I'd
be perfectly happy if there were no default binding for f-a-f.
Arguably the longer command, being a composition of more primitive
concepts, is better for making Emacs "explainable"...
*however* even there were no default binding for f-a-f, I'd probably
want to keep my personal binding, and I _do_ occasionally inadvertently
destroy non-file buffers with f-a-f ... so I think the suggested change
to f-a-f (to confirm on non-file buffers) is still useful.
-Miles
--
Somebody has to do something, and it's just incredibly pathetic that it
has to be us. -- Jerry Garcia
- RE: C-x C-v considered harmful, (continued)
- Re: C-x C-v considered harmful, Juri Linkov, 2009/07/13
- Re: C-x C-v considered harmful, Juri Linkov, 2009/07/16
- Re: C-x C-v considered harmful, M Jared Finder, 2009/07/02
- Re: C-x C-v considered harmful, Miles Bader, 2009/07/02
- Re: C-x C-v considered harmful, Richard Stallman, 2009/07/03
- Re: C-x C-v considered harmful, Andreas Schwab, 2009/07/03
- Re: C-x C-v considered harmful,
Miles Bader <=
- Re: C-x C-v considered harmful, Markus Triska, 2009/07/03
- Re: C-x C-v considered harmful, Stefan Monnier, 2009/07/05
- Re: C-x C-v considered harmful, Bob Rogers, 2009/07/05
- Re: C-x C-v considered harmful, Stefan Monnier, 2009/07/11
- Re: C-x C-v considered harmful, Bob Rogers, 2009/07/13
- Re: C-x C-v considered harmful, Stefan Monnier, 2009/07/14
Re: C-x C-v considered harmful, Stefan Monnier, 2009/07/02