From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: don provan Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.help Subject: Re: C-p, C-b, C-f, and C-n... why? Date: Sat, 17 Dec 2005 02:52:47 -0800 Message-ID: References: <1133329096.909577.80790@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <11pmkm7sol448a9@corp.supernews.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: main.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1134822803 13875 80.91.229.2 (17 Dec 2005 12:33:23 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 17 Dec 2005 12:33:23 +0000 (UTC) Original-X-From: help-gnu-emacs-bounces+geh-help-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sat Dec 17 13:33:15 2005 Return-path: Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by ciao.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1EnbEd-0004QD-RU for geh-help-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Sat, 17 Dec 2005 13:32:24 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Enb5V-0007yy-2D for geh-help-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Sat, 17 Dec 2005 07:22:57 -0500 Original-Path: shelby.stanford.edu!newsfeed.stanford.edu!postnews.google.com!news3.google.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!local01.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.comcast.com!news.comcast.com.POSTED!not-for-mail Original-NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 17 Dec 2005 04:52:46 -0600 Original-Newsgroups: gnu.emacs.help User-Agent: Gnus/5.1006 (Gnus v5.10.6) Emacs/21.3 (windows-nt) Cancel-Lock: sha1:MzVIMdOdLi214BYGgKIMCfisnQk= Original-Lines: 48 Original-NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.5.236.116 Original-X-Trace: sv3-X8rzpvbaT3awG/yZiFvB7Y7RcoBm1d5VwskIqmItBTLHEiwUznb0aDh6f1mHeMU7Ozce9vT10vhDx+C!DtFjV0xVnqmA9zI0HYfzK6tOLrv2kZo2b2tU0tvW+oZpFGBxcBKiCmSAXXgunLM= Original-X-Complaints-To: abuse@comcast.net X-DMCA-Complaints-To: dmca@comcast.net X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly X-Postfilter: 1.3.32 Original-Xref: shelby.stanford.edu gnu.emacs.help:136352 Original-To: help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org 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:32016 Archived-At: 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. But when you advance to word movement, they both require two keys again, but if you use the arrow keys, you're guaranteed those two keys will require two hands. > Also, can you seriously say that, when doing complicated cursor > movements (imagine navigating around in a crossword or minesweeper > game or similar "grid2), that C-f, C-b, C-n and C-p allows for quicker > movement? If so, I think you are an alien... :) C-u is efficient? When you start talking about complicated cursor movements, I immediately assume I'm going to be quite frequently using C-u, C-uC-u, and even C-u, all of which are going to be objectively clumsy when combined with arrow keys. > I agree that for casual cursor movement *while typing text*, it is > faster to use C-f et al, but I still don't like the "more efficient" > statement as I do not find it to be true. Also, the mnemonics (f = > forward, b = back, n = next, p = previous) suggest that the commands was > put on those keys not for quick navigation bur for easy learning, in a > time where the arrows were not present on all keyboards. There's no denying the history, particularly when, as in my case, you personally experienced it. It is, in fact, pure luck of history that emacs has cursor movement defined in a way that allows for much more efficient cursor movement than standard word processors and Windows text editors. > I use both, depending on the situation. Sure, we all do. And I don't mind the description being changed to make it a little less definitive. At the same time, it doesn't take too many such concessions before you've admitted that there's no reason to switch to Emacs if you're already used to NotePad as an editor. The reasons Emacs is better than Word or NotePad are *all* debatable in this way. That doesn't mean we should start advertising Emacs as "no worse that NotePad!" The fact that the editor is designed to be driven with the hands at the home position is a *huge* win that I, for one, would not want to dilute by saying that the arrow keys are just as good as C-f, C-b, C-n, and C-p. -don provan