Minibuffer bindings.

Minibuffer bindings.

[Michael Cadilhac]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 665 bytes --]


  Hi guys !

  I was wondering why C-p and  C-n are not binded like <up> and <down>
  in  the  minibuffer.   What's  the  point of  having  some  kind  of
  duplicates of  C-a and  C-e with those  combination (okey,  it's the
  default behavior everywhere,  but well, I use to  tell people not to
  use <up> and <down> but C-p and C-n, and this makes a big difference
  between them in the mbuffer).

  Bye !

-- 
    Michael Cadilhac, a.k.a. Micha [mika] |
                    Epita/LRDE promo 2007 |  Please note that you should
  2 rue de la Convention | 08.70.65.13.14 |  s/-@t-/@/ my mail address.
94270 Le Kremlin Bicetre | 06.23.20.31.30 |

[-- Attachment #1.2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 188 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 142 bytes --]

_______________________________________________
Emacs-devel mailing list
Emacs-devel@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-devel

RE: Minibuffer bindings.

[Drew Adams]

      I was wondering why C-p and  C-n are not binded like <up> and <down>
      in  the  minibuffer.

I agree. In fact, as I wrote on 9/01 (RE: make `occur' use word at point as
default), I was thinking this was already the case (RMS corrected me).

Although my main point was that we could redefine some of the redundant
minibuffer bindings that are now equivalent to down/up, I assumed that
C-n/C-p were among these, and I specifically did not suggest that we
redefine those bindings. It's good to have down = C-n and up = C-p, IMO.

Re: Minibuffer bindings.

[Richard M. Stallman]

The minibuffer can be more than one line.  I will not change the
bindings of C-n and C-p in the minibuffer, so please drop the issue.