|
|
Up |
|
|
  |
Author: bramblebramble Date: Nov 13, 2007 22:03
The default GNU Emacs key bindings seem to work very well. They seem
particularly well-thought-out, in fact. Like stones in a stream, worn
by movement and time to have very few rough edges... They mesh well
with the ascii control characters, and I particularly like how M-
is often used as a sort of "turbo boost" to C- (like C-f vs. M-f,
for example). In cases where it makes no sense to boost the C-key,
Emacs often has elegant mnemonic bindings, for example, M-u, M-l, M-c.
Were the bindings designed as such right from the beginning by only
RMS? Or have they morphed over the years, with user and developer
requests guiding changes? Can anyone shed any light on the history of
the default key binding choices?
(Please note, I don't wish to start another thread comparing Emacs key
combinations with CUA bindings. I realize that, for whatever reasons,
some people just don't like or can't get used to Emacs key combos, but
I was hoping this thread would simply address the development and
history of Emacs bindings over time.)
Thanks.
|
| |
|
| | 18 Comments |
|
  |
Author: Stefan MonnierStefan Monnier Date: Nov 14, 2007 08:07
> Were the bindings designed as such right from the beginning by only
> RMS? Or have they morphed over the years, with user and developer
> requests guiding changes? Can anyone shed any light on the history of
> the default key binding choices?
As far as I know, the way it happened is that Richard climbed up the
mountain, where God almighty told him the bindings to use.
Stefan
|
| |
|
| | no comments |
|
  |
Author: rustomrustom Date: Nov 14, 2007 08:27
On Nov 14, 9:07 pm, Stefan Monnier wrote:
> As far as I know, the way it happened is that Richard climbed up the
> mountain, where God almighty told him the bindings to use.
>
> Stefan
And carrying those heavy keybindings-tablets down gave him a bad case
of emacs-pinky
|
| |
| no comments |
|
  |
Author: Juanma BarranqueroJuanma Barranquero Date: Nov 14, 2007 09:05
On 11/14/07, Stefan Monnier wrote:
> As far as I know, the way it happened is that Richard climbed up the
> mountain, where God almighty told him the bindings to use.
Do you mean, God told Richard the bindings He was already using, don't
you? I'm sure not even Him could manage a six-day totally on-schedule
world creation event without some kind of planning mode on Emacs...
Juanma
|
| |
| no comments |
|
  |
Author: Barry MargolinBarry Margolin Date: Nov 14, 2007 17:16
> The default GNU Emacs key bindings seem to work very well. They seem
> particularly well-thought-out, in fact. Like stones in a stream, worn
> by movement and time to have very few rough edges... They mesh well
> with the ascii control characters, and I particularly like how M-
> is often used as a sort of "turbo boost" to C- (like C-f vs. M-f,
> for example). In cases where it makes no sense to boost the C-key,
> Emacs often has elegant mnemonic bindings, for example, M-u, M-l, M-c.
>
> Were the bindings designed as such right from the beginning by only
> RMS? Or have they morphed over the years, with user and developer
> requests guiding changes? Can anyone shed any light on the history of
> the default key binding choices?
|
| Show full article (1.83Kb) |
| no comments |
|
  |
|
Author: bramblebramble Date: Nov 14, 2007 19:19
|
| |
| no comments |
|
  |
|
Author: Xah LeeXah Lee Date: Nov 15, 2007 00:33
|
| |
| no comments |
|
  |
Author: Stefan KamphausenStefan Kamphausen Date: Nov 15, 2007 02:49
File: genesis.org
----------------------------------------------------------------------
-*- mode: org -*-
GENESIS - THE WORLD PROJECT
* Environment
** TODO Create Heavens And Earth
SCHEDULED: <0000-00-01 Mon>
** TODO Make Light
SCHEDULED: <0000-00-01 Mon>
** TODO Make The Sky
SCHEDULED: <0000-00-02 Tue>
** TODO Make Some Land
SCHEDULED: <0000-00-03 Wed>
** TODO Make The Sun And The Moon
SCHEDULED: <0000-00-04 Thu>
** TODO Make The Stars
SCHEDULED: <0000-00-04 Thu>
|
| Show full article (1.21Kb) |
| no comments |
|
  |
Author: Lennart Borgman (gmail)Lennart Borgman (gmail) Date: Nov 15, 2007 06:06
Xah Lee wrote:
> emacs's keybind is actually the worst possible in both ergonomic and
> ease of use considerations. Likely a randomly generated shortcut set
> will have a 30%% chance better.
>
> See: Why Emacs's Keyboard Shortcuts Are Painful
> http://xahlee.org/emacs/emacs_kb_shortcuts_pain.html
|
| |
| no comments |
|
  |
|
|
  |
Author: rustomrustom Date: Nov 15, 2007 08:01
On Nov 15, 7:06 pm, "Lennart Borgman (gmail)"
gmail.com> wrote:
> Xah Lee wrote:
>> emacs's keybind is actually the worst possible in both ergonomic and
>> ease of use considerations. Likely a randomly generated shortcut set
>> will have a 30%% chance better.
>
Thanks Lennart. This is just what I was looking for. Didn't know the
name sticky keys so couldn't ask
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
|
|