From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Dan Jacobson Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.help Subject: Re: what is *shell* mode's equivalent to bash's C-o? Date: 12 Jan 2003 18:07:21 +0800 Sender: help-gnu-emacs-bounces+gnu-help-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Message-ID: <878yxq65ra.fsf@jidanni.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: main.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: main.gmane.org 1042370492 17952 80.91.224.249 (12 Jan 2003 11:21:32 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@main.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 12 Jan 2003 11:21:32 +0000 (UTC) Return-path: Original-Received: from monty-python.gnu.org ([199.232.76.173]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 18XgBH-0004fQ-00 for ; Sun, 12 Jan 2003 12:21:31 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.10.13) id 18XgAS-0001sa-03 for gnu-help-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Sun, 12 Jan 2003 06:20:40 -0500 Original-Path: shelby.stanford.edu!newsfeed.stanford.edu!newsmi-us.news.garr.it!NewsITBone-GARR!news.mailgate.org!newsfeed.stueberl.de!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!tc210-203-44-167.3-16.pl.ebtnet.NET!not-for-mail Original-Newsgroups: gnu.emacs.help Original-Lines: 9 Original-NNTP-Posting-Host: tc210-203-44-167.3-16.pl.ebtnet.net (210.203.44.167) Original-X-Trace: fu-berlin.de 1042370285 19738275 210.203.44.167 (16 [99749]) X-Orig-Path: jidanni.org!news User-Agent: Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.2 Original-Xref: shelby.stanford.edu gnu.emacs.help:108864 Original-To: help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org X-BeenThere: help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1b5 Precedence: list List-Id: Users list for the GNU Emacs text editor List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: , Errors-To: help-gnu-emacs-bounces+gnu-help-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.emacs.help:5393 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.help:5393 > If there's no existing binding for it in shell-mode, do people think > C-o is a reasonable one? The default emacs binding of C-o doesn't seem > all that useful in shell-mode/comint... I thought they had to be different so we all can get early Alzheimers' like M-p/C-p, M-n/C-n etc. emacs/bash. That means M-o/C-o so we can go L-o/C-o quicker. -- http://jidanni.org/ Taiwan(04)25854780