From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Eli Zaretskii Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Why does the tutorial talk about C-n/C-p etc? Date: Sun, 13 Mar 2016 18:36:25 +0200 Message-ID: <838u1mfi7q.fsf@gnu.org> References: <87y49q64eg.fsf@russet.org.uk> <87wpp9dkux.fsf@russet.org.uk> <83twkbfofd.fsf@gnu.org> Reply-To: Eli Zaretskii NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1457887030 1876 80.91.229.3 (13 Mar 2016 16:37:10 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 13 Mar 2016 16:37:10 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Tom Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sun Mar 13 17:37:03 2016 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1af90p-0008IQ-9b for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sun, 13 Mar 2016 17:37:03 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:36762 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1af90o-0000Sl-Df for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sun, 13 Mar 2016 12:37:02 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:57984) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1af90l-0000SS-2n for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 13 Mar 2016 12:36:59 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1af90h-0002eQ-S4 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 13 Mar 2016 12:36:59 -0400 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::e]:40791) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1af90h-0002eM-Oh; Sun, 13 Mar 2016 12:36:55 -0400 Original-Received: from 84.94.185.246.cable.012.net.il ([84.94.185.246]:4508 helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:128) (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1af90g-0006My-UK; Sun, 13 Mar 2016 12:36:55 -0400 In-reply-to: (message from Tom on Sun, 13 Mar 2016 11:36:19 +0000 (UTC)) X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] X-Received-From: 2001:4830:134:3::e X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:201605 Archived-At: > From: Tom > Date: Sun, 13 Mar 2016 11:36:19 +0000 (UTC) > > Eli Zaretskii gnu.org> writes: > > > > > > I think we should first mention that arrow keys work, then invite > > > users to learn C-b etc. saying that editing will be faster. > > > > We already do precisely that. > > > > If arrows keys work out of the box then C-p/n etc. should be > in a section called advanced cursor control or something like > that and it should be moved somewhere to the end. It's not an advanced topic, its basic cursor motion. And the same issue pops up again with C-v vs PageDown. > Insertion and deletion, frames, undo, etc. are more important for > a new user than relearning the cursor keys, so emacs style cursor > movement can be considered an advanced topic which can be > learned after the user can use emacs with the arrow keys. > > And if it's an advanced topic then it would be better placed > at the end of the tutorial with other advanced topics like recursive > editing after the basics like windows, undo and stuff. I urge you to try modifying the tutorial along these lines, and show the results here. I'm sure you will soon enough bump into a problem that you will have to make many changes in the text where you originally didn't want to. The tutorial text has its internal logic, whereby it relies on previously covered stuff as it advances, so moving part of that to the end will produce gaps in the flow of logic. I'm not saying that the tutorial cannot be changed, or that we cannot mention the familiar editing keys more than we currently do. I'm just saying that doing that is not as simple as moving some part to another place. There's more there than meets the eye. Thanks.