[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Proposal: new default bindings for winner and windmove
From: |
Daniel Colascione |
Subject: |
Re: Proposal: new default bindings for winner and windmove |
Date: |
Wed, 26 Jun 2024 11:49:22 -0400 |
User-agent: |
K-9 Mail for Android |
On June 26, 2024 11:38:32 AM EDT, Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> wrote:
>> Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2024 09:57:30 -0400
>> From: Daniel Colascione <dancol@dancol.org>
>> CC: jb@jeremybryant.net, luangruo@yahoo.com, acm@muc.de,
>> stefankangas@gmail.com,
>> monnier@iro.umontreal.ca, emacs-devel@gnu.org
>>
>> >> To be clear, my proposal is to bind C-x 4 <arrow> in the default global
>> >> keymap to the corresponding directional windmove commands and to bind the
>> >> shifted versions of these keys to the state swapping versions of these
>> >> movement commands. IOW, in emacs -Q, C-x 4 LEFT should move left.
>> >
>> >Thanks, but how should we do that without breaking
>> >windmove-default-keybindings for those users who use it?
>>
>> ... by not touching windmove-default-keybindings, except perhaps to mark it
>> obsolete? Adding bindings to the default keymap does not interfere in any
>> way with what windmove-default-keybindings does.
>
>So people who use windmove-default-keybindings will now have these
>commands bound to more than one key sequence?
Yeah. This situation strikes me as only slightly ugly though, and I don't see
another way to reconcile the compatibility constraints with adding new
keybindings. Would we remove the global C-x 4 bindings when someone called
windmove-default-keybindings? That doesn't strike me as the surprise-minimizing
option.
I hoped we could come
>up with a more elegant solution.
- Re: Proposal: new default bindings for winner and windmove, (continued)
- Re: Proposal: new default bindings for winner and windmove, Petteri Hintsanen, 2024/06/24
- Re: Proposal: new default bindings for winner and windmove, Jeremy Bryant, 2024/06/25
- Re: Proposal: new default bindings for winner and windmove, Eli Zaretskii, 2024/06/26
- Re: Proposal: new default bindings for winner and windmove, Daniel Colascione, 2024/06/26
- Re: Proposal: new default bindings for winner and windmove, Eli Zaretskii, 2024/06/26
- Re: Proposal: new default bindings for winner and windmove, Daniel Colascione, 2024/06/26
- Re: Proposal: new default bindings for winner and windmove, Eli Zaretskii, 2024/06/26
- Re: Proposal: new default bindings for winner and windmove,
Daniel Colascione <=
- Re: Proposal: new default bindings for winner and windmove, Hovav Shacham, 2024/06/28
- RE: [External] : Re: Proposal: new default bindings for winner and windmove, Drew Adams, 2024/06/28
- Re: [External] : Re: Proposal: new default bindings for winner and windmove, Eli Zaretskii, 2024/06/29
- Re: Proposal: new default bindings for winner and windmove, Stefan Kangas, 2024/06/30
- Re: Proposal: new default bindings for winner and windmove, Alan Mackenzie, 2024/06/26
- Re: Proposal: new default bindings for winner and windmove, Daniel Colascione, 2024/06/26
- Re: Proposal: new default bindings for winner and windmove, Po Lu, 2024/06/26
- Re: Proposal: new default bindings for winner and windmove, Daniel Colascione, 2024/06/26
- Re: Proposal: new default bindings for winner and windmove, Po Lu, 2024/06/26
- Re: Proposal: new default bindings for winner and windmove, Alan Mackenzie, 2024/06/26