[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: [Orgmode] Re: counter-intuitive key bindings

From: Carsten Dominik
Subject: Re: [Orgmode] Re: counter-intuitive key bindings
Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2007 07:05:50 +0200

On Jul 28, 2007, at 20:35, Leo wrote:

On 2007-07-28 12:43 +0100, Bastien wrote:
Leo <address@hidden> writes:

These key bindings are to move from one set of the TODO items to
another, which intuitively are a vertical motion.

Well, I don't share this intuition.

Since S-<left/right> cycles through TODO states, it's consistent to use
C-S-<left/right> to cycle through TODO-states sets.

And since S-<up/down> changes the priority state, i guess C-S-<up/down> could cycle through *priority-states sets* - if any. (I actually have no
idea whether priority-states sets would be useful to someone.)

In this case, I feel there should a consistent definition of key
bindings. One excellent example is vc, it is just so easy to remember.

What do you mean with "consistent definition of key bindings".

I have been an regular user of org, and I have already forgotten that
S-up/down does priority change after one month's break.

I have been trying very hard to make the key bindings as logical
as possible - but there is a huge amount of commands in org,
and many keys are needed.

That said, the S-up/down for priorities does leas to a couple
of inconsistencies, in particular between agenda and org-mode buffers.

- Carsten

Leo <sdl.web AT gmail.com>                         (GPG Key: 9283AA3F)

Emacs-orgmode mailing list

Carsten Dominik
Sterrenkundig Instituut "Anton Pannekoek"
Universiteit van Amsterdam
Kruislaan 403
NL-1098SJ Amsterdam
phone: +31 20 525 7477

reply via email to

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