From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Xavier Maillard Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.help Subject: Re: C-p, C-b, C-f, and C-n... why? Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2005 00:26:36 +0100 Message-ID: References: <1133329096.909577.80790@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <11pmkm7sol448a9@corp.supernews.com> <87k6e6f673.fsf@lucien.dreaming> Reply-To: zedek@gnu-rox.org NNTP-Posting-Host: main.gmane.org X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1134689603 7412 80.91.229.2 (15 Dec 2005 23:33:23 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2005 23:33:23 +0000 (UTC) Cc: help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Original-X-From: help-gnu-emacs-bounces+geh-help-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Fri Dec 16 00:33:21 2005 Return-path: Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by ciao.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1En2ZF-0004Df-78 for geh-help-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Fri, 16 Dec 2005 00:31:21 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1En2Zu-0008Bb-Al for geh-help-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Thu, 15 Dec 2005 18:32:02 -0500 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1En2ZR-0008AS-V6 for help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Thu, 15 Dec 2005 18:31:34 -0500 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1En2ZO-00087f-Mo for help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Thu, 15 Dec 2005 18:31:33 -0500 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1En2ZO-00087a-Fq for help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Thu, 15 Dec 2005 18:31:30 -0500 Original-Received: from [213.41.184.169] (helo=smtp.gnu-rox.org) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1En2bh-0005sP-H5 for help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Thu, 15 Dec 2005 18:33:54 -0500 Original-Received: from localhost.localdomain (unknown [10.0.0.6]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.gnu-rox.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7D3B18BBF6; Fri, 16 Dec 2005 00:33:56 +0100 (CET) Original-Received: from zedek by localhost.localdomain with local (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1En2Ue-00075N-Ni; Fri, 16 Dec 2005 00:26:36 +0100 Original-To: bkhl@elektrubadur.se (=?utf-8?Q?Bj=C3=B6rn_Lindstr=C3=B6m?=) In-reply-to: <87k6e6f673.fsf@lucien.dreaming> (bkhl@elektrubadur.se) User-Agent: RMAIL/GNU Emacs 22.0.50.1 X-BeenThere: help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Users list for the GNU Emacs text editor List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: help-gnu-emacs-bounces+geh-help-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: help-gnu-emacs-bounces+geh-help-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.help:31976 Archived-At: From: bkhl@elektrubadur.se (=?utf-8?Q?Bj=C3=B6rn_Lindstr=C3=B6m?=) Mail-Copies-To: never Mathias Dahl writes: > OK, the distance from the home row is shorter, but I still don't think > you can conclude that it is more efficient. For example, C-f require > "two" (or one, or one and a half if you want) keypresses while the > arrow keys require only single keypresses. That argument is a bit flawed. Too use the arrow keys you have to abandon the basic touch typing position completely and then find it again. This will take a lot longer than pressing any key combination you can reach from the basic position. This is exactly why I feel better with key combinations than with arrow keys. My arrow keys are very small and not disposed ideally. I guess this depends on keyboards more than anything else. Xavier