[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: [Orgmode] counter-intuitive key bindings

From: Adam Spiers
Subject: Re: [Orgmode] counter-intuitive key bindings
Date: Sat, 28 Jul 2007 13:52:42 +0100
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.14 (2007-02-12)

On Sat, Jul 28, 2007 at 12:17:06PM +0100, Leo wrote:
> (info "(org)Multiple sets in one file")
> | `C-S-<right>'
> | `C-S-<left>'
> |      These keys jump from one TODO subset to the next.  In the above
> |      example, `C-S-<right>' would jump from `TODO' or `DONE' to
> |      `REPORT', and any of the words in the second row to `CANCELED'.  
> These key bindings are to move from one set of the TODO items to
> another, which intuitively are a vertical motion. See this configure:
> |      (setq org-todo-keywords
> |            '((sequence "TODO" "|" "DONE")
> |              (sequence "REPORT" "BUG" "KNOWNCAUSE" "|" "FIXED")
> |              (sequence "|" "CANCELED")))
> I would propose to change these key bindings to:
>    C-S-<up/down>

Agreed, this is more logical, although the modified cursor key
bindings are always going to be contended.  Personally I have a
"global" standard set of key bindings for outline navigation and
editing which applies across several modes: folding-mode, org-mode,
outline-minor-mode (and allout), orgstruct-mode.  Having to remember
different bindings for how to hide/reveal/zoom to a subtree in each
mode is a nightmare.  I would love to see some standardization here
with more mode authors talking to each other.

On a related topic, if I have S-{left,right} on my org-disputed-keys
list, this breaks using them for changing a timestamp by one-day
increments, even though I don't consider that a clashing binding.  I
guess I am arguing that this is a minor bug with `org-key' being too
indiscriminate in when it filters bindings.

reply via email to

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