From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail
From: Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org>
Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel
Subject: Re: Default Emacs keybindings
Date: Sat, 01 May 2004 13:50:50 -0400
Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+emacs-devel=quimby.gnus.org@gnu.org
Message-ID: <E1BJydW-0001L8-L5@fencepost.gnu.org>
References: <rjvfjngnav.fsf_-_@sheridan.dina.kvl.dk>
	<Pine.LNX.3.96.1040426132416.273A-100000@acm.acm>
	<rjbrl9hayv.fsf@sheridan.dina.kvl.dk>
Reply-To: rms@gnu.org
NNTP-Posting-Host: deer.gmane.org
X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1083434179 24904 80.91.224.253 (1 May 2004 17:56:19 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 1 May 2004 17:56:19 +0000 (UTC)
Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org
Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+emacs-devel=quimby.gnus.org@gnu.org Sat May 01 19:56:13 2004
Return-path: <emacs-devel-bounces+emacs-devel=quimby.gnus.org@gnu.org>
Original-Received: from quimby.gnus.org ([80.91.224.244])
	by deer.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian))
	id 1BJyij-0004co-00
	for <emacs-devel@deer.gmane.org>; Sat, 01 May 2004 19:56:13 +0200
Original-Received: from monty-python.gnu.org ([199.232.76.173])
	by quimby.gnus.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian))
	id 1BJyii-0007Rm-00
	for <emacs-devel@quimby.gnus.org>; Sat, 01 May 2004 19:56:12 +0200
Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=monty-python.gnu.org)
	by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.30)
	id 1BJyfl-0006pj-FB
	for emacs-devel@quimby.gnus.org; Sat, 01 May 2004 13:53:09 -0400
Original-Received: from list by monty-python.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.30)
	id 1BJye4-0006OB-LY
	for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 01 May 2004 13:51:24 -0400
Original-Received: from mail by monty-python.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.30)
	id 1BJydX-0006Ff-Ba
	for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 01 May 2004 13:51:22 -0400
Original-Received: from [199.232.76.164] (helo=fencepost.gnu.org)
	by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.30) id 1BJydX-0006Fb-5p
	for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 01 May 2004 13:50:51 -0400
Original-Received: from rms by fencepost.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.24)
	id 1BJydW-0001L8-L5; Sat, 01 May 2004 13:50:50 -0400
Original-To: Per Abrahamsen <abraham@dina.kvl.dk>
In-reply-to: <rjbrl9hayv.fsf@sheridan.dina.kvl.dk> (message from Per
	Abrahamsen on Fri, 30 Apr 2004 15:06:00 +0200)
X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.4
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." <emacs-devel.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-devel>,
	<mailto:emacs-devel-request@gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://mail.gnu.org/pipermail/emacs-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:emacs-devel@gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:emacs-devel-request@gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-devel>,
	<mailto:emacs-devel-request@gnu.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+emacs-devel=quimby.gnus.org@gnu.org
Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:22499
X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.devel:22499

    And no, I do not agree that the Emacs key bindings are inherently
    superior for experienced users.  They just happen to be what we are
    used to.

I recall that someone did an experiment around 1980 to compare the
efficiency of editing with arrow keys and with C-f, C-b, etc.  The
result was that the arrow keys were less efficient.