Re: [Request]: Change keyboard shortcuts to more standard

[Zach DeCook]

On March 1, 2020 8:08:04 AM EST, Benno Schulenberg <address@hidden> wrote:
>
>Op 29-02-2020 om 15:50 schreef Zach DeCook:
>>> > I don't advocate changing the *main* keystrokes.
>
>But below you advocate the changing of ^O, ^X, and ^W, which to me
>are pretty main keystrokes in nano.
>
>> Here are my suggestions for the time-being:
>> 
>> * ^Q Quit (exit)
>> * ^O Open file (read file into new buffer)
>> * ^Z Undo
>> * ^Y Redo
>> * ^F Find (whereis)
>> * ^X not bound
>> * ^V not bound
>> * ^W not bound
>
>Are you suggesting that these become the default bindings?  But...
>how do you think long-time users of nano would react when suddenly
>^W and ^X do not work any more?  Both are pure muscle memory for me.

They might modify their nanorcs, and either scoff at nano becoming friendlier 
to DE users, or remember a time in their lives when they would have preferred 
nano behave than way.

>(And what if ^Q became Exit on a newer nano, but on a server or some
>other machine an older nano is installed?  I already stumble almost
>every week because on those older nanos ^S does not work.)

On the part of the non-^S save nanos: are those even still around? (Perhaps 
only in GPLv3-hating distros?)

Software changes. Thankfully (for the most part) the same nanorc works for all 
versions, though when not possible, they could just press ^W, then groan in 
frustration and press ^F.

>Also, how would I now start a backward search
^F M-B
> or save a file under a different name? 
> Suggesting rebindings is fine, but all existing
> functions need to stay accessible

nano has so many shortcuts already: if this philosophy is continued, it will be 
necessary to bind the capital and lowercase meta commands separately, so maybe 
some of them can be used (shift meta S for "save as"?)

>> I think this change is necessary as users coming from a desktop
>environment
>> associate ^W with "Close window". With the current (nano 4.8)
>behavior, pressing
>> ^W not only does *not* close the window,
>
>"Closing a window" does not make sense in nano.  For what it's worth:
>^W does not close the window in vim or emacs either.

Remind me: do emacs and vim have superior ways of exiting than nano? Is ^X a 
convention for closing in any modern interface other than nano? Thanks (this is 
only partially facetious).

>> Changing ^X to cut would hurt  users familiar to nano, so unbinding
>is best.
>> Current behavior of ^C is not jarring, so it doesn't need to change.
>
>This seems strange to me: with ^Q, ^F, ^Z, ^Y you want to make things
>easier for desktop users.  But then you don't go all the way and don't
>make ^X, ^C, and ^V do what desktop users expect.

Think of it as appeasing both crowds. If you like ^X exit, you can config it 
back. If you want ^X cut, you can configure that. If this change is made, maybe 
2-6 years down the line (when older nano's are less prevalent), someone will 
suggest changing it *all* the way.

>> Setting M-Z to Suspend (removing toggle suspension) is very logical.
>Users who
>> like to suspend are already using it (M-Z ^Z) to suspend,
>
>Users who like to suspend will have 'set suspend' in their nanorc.
>(And users of Debian have this line by default in their /etc/nanorc,
>so for them ^Z always works.)

If they're already making a configuration change, they can `bind ^Z suspend 
all`.


With love,
-Zach