Lars Ingebrigtsen writes: > Philip Kaludercic writes: > >> The code should probably be refactored, moving more of the common >> functionality into it's own function, but I am primarily wondering if >> using emulation-mode-map-alists the way I am proposing it here is ok. Or >> should I prefer minor-mode-map-alist? > > Making windmove into a regular (global) minor mode would be less > surprising, I think, but I'm not really familiar with windmove, and > whether that would be an easy rewrite? I have tried this out, and it seems somewhat elegant. From my testing, it seems to behave the same way as the previous approach. -- Philip K.