[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Emacs terminology (not again!?) [was: Apologia for bzr]

From: David Kastrup
Subject: Re: Emacs terminology (not again!?) [was: Apologia for bzr]
Date: Thu, 09 Jan 2014 20:38:38 +0100
User-agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.3.50 (gnu/linux)

Tom <address@hidden> writes:

> David Kastrup <dak <at> gnu.org> writes:
>> It's more like "it's unavoidable to provide difficulties to learning
>> because it can do a lot, and when a lot is easily accessible, you'll
>> have stuff getting in your hair accidentally".
> Arbitrary roadblocks can be removed, though.
> For example, yank is not a superior term to paste, so paste could be
> used instead. One unnecessary difference less.

You mean, unnecessary similarity.  This has a C-y keyboard binding, and
vi uses y and Y bindings for yanking as well.

> Emacs provides enough material to learn without these arbitrary
> (legacy) differences, so these should be eliminated where possible.

The problem is that they are not "arbitrary" but deeply ingrained into
the choice of keyboard sequences.  And C-x and C-c are pretty much the
most reliably accessible control characters, so they make good sense for
starting multiple keystroke sequences.

What _is_ somewhat annoying in contrast is the positioning of C-b C-n
C-p and C-f.  The hjkl sequences of vi or C-s C-x C-e C-d sequences of
WordStar make more sense.

David Kastrup

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]