From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: "Robert J. Chassell" Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Menu suggestion Date: Wed, 28 Apr 2004 12:51:25 +0000 (UTC) Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+emacs-devel=quimby.gnus.org@gnu.org Message-ID: References: <87wu40vgds.fsf@mail.jurta.org> Reply-To: bob@rattlesnake.com NNTP-Posting-Host: deer.gmane.org X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1083158226 21356 80.91.224.253 (28 Apr 2004 13:17:06 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 28 Apr 2004 13:17:06 +0000 (UTC) Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+emacs-devel=quimby.gnus.org@gnu.org Wed Apr 28 15:16:53 2004 Return-path: Original-Received: from quimby.gnus.org ([80.91.224.244]) by deer.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1BIovk-0007NI-00 for ; Wed, 28 Apr 2004 15:16:52 +0200 Original-Received: from monty-python.gnu.org ([199.232.76.173]) by quimby.gnus.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1BIovk-0004qy-00 for ; Wed, 28 Apr 2004 15:16:52 +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 1BIoXp-0001Sp-B1 for emacs-devel@quimby.gnus.org; Wed, 28 Apr 2004 08:52:09 -0400 Original-Received: from list by monty-python.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.30) id 1BIoXh-0001SJ-Bj for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 28 Apr 2004 08:52:01 -0400 Original-Received: from mail by monty-python.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.30) id 1BIoXA-0001P0-Pt for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 28 Apr 2004 08:51:59 -0400 Original-Received: from [140.186.114.245] (helo=rattlesnake.com) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.30) id 1BIoX9-0001Ol-Rw for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 28 Apr 2004 08:51:28 -0400 Original-Received: by rattlesnake.com via sendmail from stdin id (Debian Smail3.2.0.115) Wed, 28 Apr 2004 12:51:25 +0000 (UTC) Original-To: emacs-devel@gnu.org In-reply-to: <87wu40vgds.fsf@mail.jurta.org> (message from Juri Linkov on Wed, 28 Apr 2004 08:09:32 +0300) X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.4 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+emacs-devel=quimby.gnus.org@gnu.org Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:22298 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.devel:22298 I am eager to achieve maximum efficiency in Emacs editing, but I don't see how an asymmetrical layout of C-f C-b C-n C-p C-a C-e C-v M-v is better for cursor motion than logically placed arrow keys... You have to move your hand further to reach the arrow keys than the control or meta keys. This is the big factor. (And this, by the way, is why some people prefer the VI movement bindings. So long as you do not edit, you do not even have to move your little finger to the left of your `A' key or your left thumb down below your `X' key. (However, I found that I edit and type at the same time, so using VI bindings meant I had to change mode at almost every word, which was less efficient than the Emacs bindings. As far as I can see, the VI keybindings are fine for people who separate editing and typing. In generations past, many secretaries were trained not to edit by themselves so typing and editing were separate.) -- Robert J. Chassell Rattlesnake Enterprises As I slowly update it, bob@rattlesnake.com I rewrite a "What's New" segment for http://www.rattlesnake.com