C-p, C-b, C-f, and C-n... why?

C-p, C-b, C-f, and C-n... why?

[casioculture]

In the tutorial it suggests I use  C-p, C-b, C-f, and C-n rather than
arrow keys, why should i?

What's even more annoying is this: C-p requires left hand C and right
hand p, and then C-b requries right hand C and left hand b. Same goes
for C-f and C-n.

Trying to get used to this is such a pain. It's ludicrous.

RE: C-p, C-b, C-f, and C-n... why?

[Dave Humphries]

Yeah I enjoyed this so much I remapped these keys to
Original 	Remapped
C-p		C-e
C-n		C-d
C-b		C-s
C-f		C-f
C-a		C-a
And cursor to end of line as C-g
This involved some remapping of useful key mappings squashed in the
change but means I don't have to think about the keys for moving point
as the key layout is the same as the required direction and it is all on
the same hand.
It started as an experiment but has lasted for a while now. I have done
a similar, but incomplete job remapping the kill keys to the right-hand.

Dave
 

-----Original Message-----
From: help-gnu-emacs-bounces+dave.humphries=dytech.com.au@gnu.org
[mailto:help-gnu-emacs-bounces+dave.humphries=dytech.com.au@gnu.org] On
Behalf Of casioculture@gmail.com
Sent: Wednesday, 30 November 2005 4:38 PM
To: help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org
Subject: C-p, C-b, C-f, and C-n... why?



In the tutorial it suggests I use  C-p, C-b, C-f, and C-n rather than
arrow keys, why should i?

What's even more annoying is this: C-p requires left hand C and right
hand p, and then C-b requries right hand C and left hand b. Same goes
for C-f and C-n.

Trying to get used to this is such a pain. It's ludicrous.

_______________________________________________
Help-gnu-emacs mailing list
Help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/help-gnu-emacs

RE: C-p, C-b, C-f, and C-n... why?

[Herbert Euler]

First of all, some terms (especially the ones with which you log
into a remote server) do not support arrow keys. Some keyboard
do not have arrow keys.

Secondly, you might not need to get used to other keystrokes
after you will be familiar with Emacs, since you could find Emacs
is able to finish a lot of kinds of jobs conveniently so that you
don't need other editors.

Regards,
Guanpeng Xu

_________________________________________________________________
Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today it's FREE! 
http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/

Re: C-p, C-b, C-f, and C-n... why?

[Lennart Borgman]

casioculture@gmail.com wrote:

>In the tutorial it suggests I use  C-p, C-b, C-f, and C-n rather than
>arrow keys, why should i?
>
>What's even more annoying is this: C-p requires left hand C and right
>hand p, and then C-b requries right hand C and left hand b. Same goes
>for C-f and C-n.
>
>Trying to get used to this is such a pain. It's ludicrous.
>  
>
You might be interested in StickyKeys, please see 
http://ourcomments.org/Emacs/EmacsW32Util.html#keyboard. StickyKeys are 
available under a bit different names in some OS:es. See also 
http://developer.gnome.org/projects/gup/hig/.

Re: C-p, C-b, C-f, and C-n... why?

[Alan Mackenzie]

casioculture@gmail.com wrote on 29 Nov 2005 21:38:16 -0800:

> In the tutorial it suggests I use  C-p, C-b, C-f, and C-n rather than
> arrow keys, why should i?

There's no "should" here, only a suggestion.

Sometimes you'll just want to move by a single character or line, or just
a few.  For example, you might have done M-b to move back a few words,
then want to move two characters into the last of these - with C-f you
don't have to move your right hand to the other side of the keyboard.

> What's even more annoying is this: C-p requires left hand C and right
> hand p, and then C-b requries right hand C and left hand b. Same goes
> for C-f and C-n.

I just use the left hand control key for all these.  Everybody's
different.  :-)

It's probably rare to want to mix lots of these combinations.

> Trying to get used to this is such a pain. It's ludicrous.

Well, don't do it, then!  You've got the special purpose arrow keys on
your keyboard so if it suits you, use them.

Perhaps the real question is why does the tutorial emphasise C-p, etc?
Remember that Emacs dates from the mid 1980s, when you worked telephones
by rotating a dial with your finger, music was bought on 12" diameter
vinyl disks and lots of keyboards didn't have arrow keys.  The tutorial
in the upcoming Emacs 22 mentions the arrow keys, but still recommends
C-f, etc.

-- 
Alan Mackenzie (Munich, Germany)
Email: aacm@muuc.dee; to decode, wherever there is a repeated letter
(like "aa"), remove half of them (leaving, say, "a").

Re: C-p, C-b, C-f, and C-n... why?

[Harald Hanche-Olsen]

+ casioculture@gmail.com:

| In the tutorial it suggests I use C-p, C-b, C-f, and C-n rather than
| arrow keys, why should i?

If you don't want to, don't.  The tutorial is very old.  As others
have explained, some keyboards don't have arrow keys, and with some
network connections, they may not work even if you have them.  But
this is much less a problem now than it was twenty years ago.

Personally, I use both arrow keys and C-p etc.  The latter have the
advantage that I don't need to move my hands to type them.  The arrow
keys have the advantage that they are bunched close together, so I
prefer them when I have lots of movement to do.  (But then other
movement commands may be more useful, such as M-f, M-b, M-a, M-e.)

| Trying to get used to this is such a pain. It's ludicrous.

Don't force yourself into doing something you're uncomfortable with.
Now /that/ is ludicrous.

-- 
* Harald Hanche-Olsen     <URL:http://www.math.ntnu.no/~hanche/>
- Debating gives most of us much more psychological satisfaction
  than thinking does: but it deprives us of whatever chance there is
  of getting closer to the truth.  -- C.P. Snow

Re: C-p, C-b, C-f, and C-n... why?

[David Kastrup]

"Dave Humphries" <dave.humphries@dytech.com.au> writes:

> Yeah I enjoyed this so much I remapped these keys to
> Original 	Remapped
> C-p		C-e
> C-n		C-d
> C-b		C-s
> C-f		C-f
> C-a		C-a
> And cursor to end of line as C-g
> This involved some remapping of useful key mappings squashed in the
> change but means I don't have to think about the keys for moving point
> as the key layout is the same as the required direction and it is all on
> the same hand.
> It started as an experiment but has lasted for a while now. I have done
> a similar, but incomplete job remapping the kill keys to the right-hand.

wordstar-mode is an interactive autoloaded Lisp function in `ws-mode'.
(wordstar-mode)

Major mode with WordStar-like key bindings.

BUGS:
 - Help menus with WordStar commands (C-j just calls help-for-help)
   are not implemented
 - Options for search and replace
 - Show markers (C-k h) is somewhat strange
 - Search and replace (C-q a) is only available in forward direction

No key bindings beginning with ESC are installed, they will work
Emacs-like.

The key bindings are:

  C-a		backward-word
  C-b		fill-paragraph
  C-c		scroll-up-line
  C-d		forward-char
  C-e		previous-line
  C-f		forward-word
  C-g		delete-char
  C-h		backward-char
  C-i		indent-for-tab-command
  C-j		help-for-help
  C-k		ordstar-C-k-map
  C-l		ws-repeat-search
  C-n		open-line
  C-p		quoted-insert
  C-r		scroll-down-line
  C-s		backward-char
  C-t		kill-word
  C-u		keyboard-quit
  C-v		overwrite-mode
  C-w		scroll-down
  C-x		next-line
  C-y		kill-complete-line
  C-z		scroll-up

  C-k 0		ws-set-marker-0
  C-k 1		ws-set-marker-1
  C-k 2		ws-set-marker-2
  C-k 3		ws-set-marker-3
  C-k 4		ws-set-marker-4
  C-k 5		ws-set-marker-5
  C-k 6		ws-set-marker-6
  C-k 7		ws-set-marker-7
  C-k 8		ws-set-marker-8
  C-k 9		ws-set-marker-9
  C-k b		ws-begin-block
  C-k c		ws-copy-block
  C-k d		save-buffers-kill-emacs
  C-k f		find-file
  C-k h		ws-show-markers
  C-k i		ws-indent-block
  C-k k		ws-end-block
  C-k p		ws-print-block
  C-k q		kill-emacs
  C-k r		insert-file
  C-k s		save-some-buffers
  C-k t		ws-mark-word
  C-k u		ws-exdent-block
  C-k C-u	keyboard-quit
  C-k v		ws-move-block
  C-k w		ws-write-block
  C-k x		kill-emacs
  C-k y		ws-delete-block

  C-o c		wordstar-center-line
  C-o b		switch-to-buffer
  C-o j		justify-current-line
  C-o k		kill-buffer
  C-o l		list-buffers
  C-o m		auto-fill-mode
  C-o r		set-fill-column
  C-o C-u	keyboard-quit
  C-o wd	delete-other-windows
  C-o wh	split-window-horizontally
  C-o wo	other-window
  C-o wv	split-window-vertically

  C-q 0		ws-find-marker-0
  C-q 1		ws-find-marker-1
  C-q 2		ws-find-marker-2
  C-q 3		ws-find-marker-3
  C-q 4		ws-find-marker-4
  C-q 5		ws-find-marker-5
  C-q 6		ws-find-marker-6
  C-q 7		ws-find-marker-7
  C-q 8		ws-find-marker-8
  C-q 9		ws-find-marker-9
  C-q a		ws-query-replace
  C-q b		ws-to-block-begin
  C-q c		end-of-buffer
  C-q d		end-of-line
  C-q f		ws-search
  C-q k		ws-to-block-end
  C-q l		ws-undo
  C-q p		ws-last-cursorp
  C-q r		beginning-of-buffer
  C-q C-u	keyboard-quit
  C-q w		ws-last-error
  C-q y		ws-kill-eol
  C-q DEL	ws-kill-bol

[back]

-- 
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum

Re: C-p, C-b, C-f, and C-n... why?

[Thien-Thi Nguyen]

casioculture@gmail.com writes:

> Trying to get used to this is such a pain. 
> It's ludicrous.

  i love arrows, those symbols of pointing!
  sitting on my throne
  scepter carved of bone,
  one-touch magic, reminds me of annointing!
  with the free hand beard-stroking
           or perhaps hash-toking
           or maybe powder-coking,
  my kingdom i rule wisely, never disappointing!

  peasants use their heads too much i say!
  foreheads deeply furrowed,
  t{r}apped in their home row,
  so busy busy, they have no time to play!
  always perplexingly {b}right-smiling
           or perhaps co{de,m}-piling
            or maybe {d,cr}aft-styling,
  they do a lot, it's true, so i guess it's all okay!

  thi

Re: C-p, C-b, C-f, and C-n... why?

[David Hansen]

On Wed, 30 Nov 2005 12:58:52 +0100 Thien-Thi Nguyen wrote:

> casioculture@gmail.com writes:
>
>> Trying to get used to this is such a pain. 
>> It's ludicrous.
>
>   i love arrows, those symbols of pointing!
>   sitting on my throne
>   scepter carved of bone,
>   one-touch magic, reminds me of annointing!
>   with the free hand beard-stroking
>            or perhaps hash-toking
>            or maybe powder-coking,
>   my kingdom i rule wisely, never disappointing!
>
>   peasants use their heads too much i say!
>   foreheads deeply furrowed,
>   t{r}apped in their home row,
>   so busy busy, they have no time to play!
>   always perplexingly {b}right-smiling
>            or perhaps co{de,m}-piling
>             or maybe {d,cr}aft-styling,
>   they do a lot, it's true, so i guess it's all okay!

/me ponders to open an EmacsPoetry page on emacswiki.org :)

David

Re: C-p, C-b, C-f, and C-n... why?

[Eli Zaretskii]

> From: casioculture@gmail.com
> Date: 29 Nov 2005 21:38:16 -0800
> 
> In the tutorial it suggests I use  C-p, C-b, C-f, and C-n rather than
> arrow keys, why should i?

In the next release of Emacs, the tutorial will say:

    Moving from screenful to screenful is useful, but how do you
    move to a specific place within the text on the screen?

    There are several ways you can do this.  You can use the arrow keys,
    but it's more efficient to keep your hands in the standard position
    and use the commands C-p, C-b, C-f, and C-n.  These characters
    are equivalent to the four arrow keys, like this:

and also

    You can also use the PageUp and PageDn keys to move by screenfuls, if
    your terminal has them, but you can edit more efficiently if you use
    C-v and M-v.

So it does mention the arrow keys, but teaches the Emacs bindings
because they are faster (and because no one these days needs to be
told about the arrow keys).

> What's even more annoying is this: C-p requires left hand C and right
> hand p, and then C-b requries right hand C and left hand b. Same goes
> for C-f and C-n.

Not here: I have one of my left-hand fingers constantly in the area of
Ctrl/Shift/Alt keys, and press the rest -- p, b, n, f, whatever --
with my right hand.  Just move it a little, and you get to b, n, and
everything else.

Re: C-p, C-b, C-f, and C-n... why?

[Tim Johnson]

On 2005-11-30, casioculture@gmail.com <casioculture@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> In the tutorial it suggests I use  C-p, C-b, C-f, and C-n rather than
> arrow keys, why should i?
>
> What's even more annoying is this: C-p requires left hand C and right
> hand p, and then C-b requries right hand C and left hand b. Same goes
> for C-f and C-n.
>
> Trying to get used to this is such a pain. It's ludicrous.

    Much of this thread has been devoted to explaining *why*, as if
	emacs' chording paradigm should be defended. I'd like to take
	a different approach and speak briefly about the advantages.

	First of all, tho' let me point out that if your control key is
	not in an advantageous position it makes getting used to 'chording'
	more difficult. On my linux computers, I use xmodmap to swap
	the original caps lock and control keys so that the control key
	is next to the "a" key. Googling this topic should find some
	register scripts that enable this on Windows XP

    Having put the control key in that position, I find the control
	key combinations to be preferable in most cases to arrow keys, but
	having both is the best of both worlds.

    I have found learning emacs to be *extremely* difficult, but
	enabled by this newsgroup, and I have found the learning curve
	well worth the effort and emacs has enable me (and just speaking
	for myself here) to be much more productive than with
	point-and-click and traditional arrow keys, but that is just me..

	When my partner, who uses Kedit watches me on the keyboard, he
	just shakes his head, sighs and says "If only I could learn that!".
	But he can, just by learning a few keystrokes at a time.

	JMTCW
	Tim (who programs in emacs and writes email in Vim)
-- 
Tim Johnson <tim@johnsons-web.com>
      http://www.alaska-internet-solutions.com

Re: C-p, C-b, C-f, and C-n... why?

[Edward Dodge]

casioculture@gmail.com writes:

> In the tutorial it suggests I use  C-p, C-b, C-f, and C-n rather than
> arrow keys, why should i?
> 
> What's even more annoying is this: C-p requires left hand C and right
> hand p, and then C-b requries right hand C and left hand b. Same goes
> for C-f and C-n.
> 
> Trying to get used to this is such a pain. It's ludicrous.
> 

I think they're mnemonics:

C-p(revious), C-n(ext) -- one line

C-f(orward), C-b(back) -- one character



-- 
Edward Dodge
          
   __o    
 _`\(,_   
(_)/ (_)  ---  --- 

Re: C-p, C-b, C-f, and C-n... why?

[Xavier Maillard]

   From: Edward Dodge <user@foo.bar>

   casioculture@gmail.com writes:

   > In the tutorial it suggests I use  C-p, C-b, C-f, and C-n rather than
   > arrow keys, why should i?
   > 
   > What's even more annoying is this: C-p requires left hand C and right
   > hand p, and then C-b requries right hand C and left hand b. Same goes
   > for C-f and C-n.
   > 
   > Trying to get used to this is such a pain. It's ludicrous.
   > 

   I think they're mnemonics:

   C-p(revious), C-n(ext) -- one line

   C-f(orward), C-b(back) -- one character

I feel nuch more comfortable by using these key bindings than any arrow keys.
This is simpler than trying to get in touch with these small arrow keys (at least
on my laptop).

Xavier

Re: C-p, C-b, C-f, and C-n... why?

[roodwriter]

casioculture@gmail.com wrote:
> 
> In the tutorial it suggests I use  C-p, C-b, C-f, and C-n rather than
> arrow keys, why should i?
> 
> What's even more annoying is this: C-p requires left hand C and right
> hand p, and then C-b requries right hand C and left hand b. Same goes
> for C-f and C-n.
> 
> Trying to get used to this is such a pain. It's ludicrous.
> 

A lot of people have explained WHY the tutorial emphasizes them. And I 
partly agree with you. But I have found that using C-f, C-b, M-f and M-b 
fairly useful in that I don't have to move my hands as far as I would 
using the arrow keys. I'm a writer, not a programmer, and that may make 
a difference.

For the same reason I don't use the up and down commands because I find 
them awkward. The arrow keys, for me, are just as easy to use in that case.

I don't use the commands in all cases, but it's nice to have the choice. 
Everybody's fingers work differently. Sometimes it makes work easier, 
which is why I switched to Emacs from traditional word processors in the 
first place. I think the tutorial should start with the arrow keys and 
then give the commands as options and the history behind them.


--Rod
__________________________
Author of "Linux for Non-Geeks--Clear-eyed Answers for Practical 
Consumers" and "Boring Stories from Uncle Rod." To reply by e-mail take 
the extra "o" from the name.

Re: C-p, C-b, C-f, and C-n... why?

[Peter Dyballa]

Am 10.12.2005 um 23:13 schrieb roodwriter@core.com:

> I think the tutorial should start with the arrow keys and then give 
> the commands as options and the history behind them.
>

In (computer) history the arrow (cursor) keys came later ... and the 
tutorial is historically grown!

I too prefer mostly the arrow keys (and mouse cursor). Their use is too 
obvious to mention them that early in the tutorial, mentioning them 
could be done in a footnote. The recent state is fine in one particular 
sense: M-up does not scroll back in *shell* buffer's command history 
(because it's undefined); only M-p does. So I think it's necessary to 
teach C-{b,f,n,p} first to remember this as a way "move" in many 
things, in many sense.

--
Greetings

   Pete

"What is this talk of 'release'?  Klingons do not make software
'releases'.  Our software 'escapes' leaving a bloody trail of
designers and quality assurance people in its wake."

Re: C-p, C-b, C-f, and C-n... why?

[roodwriter]

Peter Dyballa wrote:
> 
> Am 10.12.2005 um 23:13 schrieb roodwriter@core.com:
> 
>> I think the tutorial should start with the arrow keys and then give 
>> the commands as options and the history behind them.
>>
> 
> In (computer) history the arrow (cursor) keys came later ... and the 
> tutorial is historically grown!
> 
> I too prefer mostly the arrow keys (and mouse cursor). Their use is too 
> obvious to mention them that early in the tutorial, mentioning them 
> could be done in a footnote. The recent state is fine in one particular 
> sense: M-up does not scroll back in *shell* buffer's command history 
> (because it's undefined); only M-p does. So I think it's necessary to 
> teach C-{b,f,n,p} first to remember this as a way "move" in many things, 
> in many sense.
> 
> -- 
> Greetings
> 
>   Pete
> 
> "What is this talk of 'release'?  Klingons do not make software
> 'releases'.  Our software 'escapes' leaving a bloody trail of
> designers and quality assurance people in its wake."
> 
> 
> 

Not to get into a big dispute about it, but I remember when I first 
looked at the Emacs tutorial and saw you had to cursor with the control 
keys, my first thought was maybe I'd bitten off too much. When I found 
the arrow keys worked I relaxed and started learning. I've always 
wondered how many people were intimidated by the cursoring section and 
quit before starting. I wouldn't have had the initial doubts if it'd 
been clear from the beginning the arrow keys were usable.

But that's me. I'm glad Emacs does both.


--Rod
__________________________
Author of "Linux for Non-Geeks--Clear-eyed Answers for Practical 
Consumers" and "Boring Stories from Uncle Rod." To reply by e-mail take 
the extra "o" from the name.

Re: C-p, C-b, C-f, and C-n... why?

[Lennart Borgman]

roodwriter@core.com wrote:

>
> Not to get into a big dispute about it, but I remember when I first 
> looked at the Emacs tutorial and saw you had to cursor with the 
> control keys, my first thought was maybe I'd bitten off too much. When 
> I found the arrow keys worked I relaxed and started learning. I've 
> always wondered how many people were intimidated by the cursoring 
> section and quit before starting. I wouldn't have had the initial 
> doubts if it'd been clear from the beginning the arrow keys were usable.
>
> But that's me. I'm glad Emacs does both.

I remember the same thing. And I am glad Emacs does vi keys too ;-)

Re: C-p, C-b, C-f, and C-n... why?

[Eli Zaretskii]

> From: "roodwriter@core.com" <roodwriter@core.com>
> Date: Sat, 10 Dec 2005 17:13:03 -0500
> 
> I think the tutorial should start with the arrow keys and then give
> the commands as options and the history behind them.

The version of the tutorial that is in the development sources, and
which will be in the next Emacs release, already does that:

    * BASIC CURSOR CONTROL
    ----------------------

    Moving from screenful to screenful is useful, but how do you
    move to a specific place within the text on the screen?

    There are several ways you can do this.  You can use the arrow keys,
    but it's more efficient to keep your hands in the standard position
    and use the commands C-p, C-b, C-f, and C-n.  These characters
    are equivalent to the four arrow keys, like this:

Re: C-p, C-b, C-f, and C-n... why?

[Mathias Dahl]

Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> writes:

>    * BASIC CURSOR CONTROL
>    ----------------------
>
>    Moving from screenful to screenful is useful, but how do you
>    move to a specific place within the text on the screen?
>
>    There are several ways you can do this.  You can use the arrow keys,
>    but it's more efficient to keep your hands in the standard position
>    and use the commands C-p, C-b, C-f, and C-n.  These characters
>    are equivalent to the four arrow keys, like this:

I think phrases like "but it's more efficient" is a bit dangerous. I'd
rather want something like "but some feel it's more efficient". It all
depends on the user, his keyboard, his habits etc.

Re: C-p, C-b, C-f, and C-n... why?

[Eli Zaretskii]

> From: Mathias Dahl <brakjoller@gmail.com>
> Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2005 12:59:21 +0100
> 
> >    There are several ways you can do this.  You can use the arrow keys,
> >    but it's more efficient to keep your hands in the standard position
> >    and use the commands C-p, C-b, C-f, and C-n.  These characters
> >    are equivalent to the four arrow keys, like this:
> 
> I think phrases like "but it's more efficient" is a bit dangerous. I'd
> rather want something like "but some feel it's more efficient". It all
> depends on the user, his keyboard, his habits etc.

I have yet to see a keyboard with arrow keys close to the rest of the
keys.  They are always somewhere on the fringes.  So, habits aside,
the distance to C-f is shorter than to the right arrow key, and that
is an objective fact.  Of course, people might prefer a less efficient
way, e.g., if they type so slowly that the additional time is
negligible.

Re: C-p, C-b, C-f, and C-n... why?

[Lennart Borgman]

Eli Zaretskii wrote:

>>I think phrases like "but it's more efficient" is a bit dangerous. I'd
>>rather want something like "but some feel it's more efficient". It all
>>depends on the user, his keyboard, his habits etc.
>>    
>>
>
>I have yet to see a keyboard with arrow keys close to the rest of the
>keys.  They are always somewhere on the fringes.  So, habits aside,
>the distance to C-f is shorter than to the right arrow key, and that
>is an objective fact.  Of course, people might prefer a less efficient
>way, e.g., if they type so slowly that the additional time is
>negligible.
>  
>
It is of course another objective factor. It is not equivalent to that 
it is more effecient. Does it not depend on the user, the current point 
in the learning curve etc what is most efficient?

BTW is not viper keymaps more efficient?;-)

Re: C-p, C-b, C-f, and C-n... why?

[Tim Johnson]

* Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> [051212 13:37]:
<.....> 
> I have yet to see a keyboard with arrow keys close to the rest of the
> keys.  They are always somewhere on the fringes.  
> So, habits aside,
  
  I use a small footprint logitech keyboard  like the one shown
  here:
  http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0000BVBJS/sr=1-217/qid=1134429115/ref=sr_1_217/104-6609881-4501504?%5Fencoding=UTF8

  The arrow keys are below SHIFT and the the right of the spacebar, and
  are handy as an option, certainly much handier than the standard
  keyboard configuration - but the control key combinations are still 
  preferable to me, so it is nice to have the choice.

  And I have a stand-alone numeric keypad on the left, with a trackball
  on the right. I find as a programmer that the less I move my hands the
  more productive I have and the less typing errors.

> the distance to C-f is shorter than to the right arrow key, and that
> is an objective fact.  Of course, people might prefer a less efficient
> way, e.g., if they type so slowly that the additional time is
> negligible.
 
  In the *nix environment similar key combinations can be used widely
  in other applications: i.e. midnight commander, the shell and netscape,
  as just examples. 
  tim

-- 
Tim Johnson <tim@johnsons-web.com>
      http://www.alaska-internet-solutions.com

Re: C-p, C-b, C-f, and C-n... why?

[Mathias Dahl]

Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> writes:

>> I think phrases like "but it's more efficient" is a bit dangerous. I'd
>> rather want something like "but some feel it's more efficient". It all
>> depends on the user, his keyboard, his habits etc.
>
> I have yet to see a keyboard with arrow keys close to the rest of the
> keys.  They are always somewhere on the fringes.  So, habits aside,
> the distance to C-f is shorter than to the right arrow key, and that
> is an objective fact.  Of course, people might prefer a less efficient
> way, e.g., if they type so slowly that the additional time is
> negligible.

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.

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... :)

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 =
foward, b = back, n = nex, 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.

I use both, depending on the situation.

Re: C-p, C-b, C-f, and C-n... why?

[Ralf Angeli]

* Mathias Dahl (2005-12-13) writes:

> 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?

It doesn't necessarily have to be a game.  More complicated movements
occur all the time.  And those are situations I yearn for bindings
e.g. with w, a, s, d.

-- 
Ralf

Re: C-p, C-b, C-f, and C-n... why?

[Tim Johnson]

* Ralf Angeli <dev.null@iwi.uni-sb.de> [051213 00:13]:
> * Mathias Dahl (2005-12-13) writes:
> 
> > 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?
> 
> It doesn't necessarily have to be a game.  More complicated movements
> occur all the time.  And those are situations I yearn for bindings
> e.g. with w, a, s, d.
 
  well, you can do that. As I'm finding out, you can do almost anything
  with emacs. I've reprogrammed my keyboard.
  Currently, 
  control is to the left of "a"
  hyper is right above control
  alt is on either side of my spacebar
  super is to the left of the alt-left
  TAB is to the right of alt-right.

  Adding the two extra modifier (which may not be available on
  MS-Windows) has opened up a huge number of possibilities and
  functionality.
  Example: Super-n = next subroutine
           Super-p = previous subroutine
           Super-b = previous class
           Super-f = next class
           etc, etc.
  Relocating the control and hyper keys makes combinations
  really, really nimble.

  As far as a grid, as opposed to writing a whole new mode,
  (say for crosswords, why couldn't one write a defun to
   reset keys on an adhoc basis?)

   The trick is remembering all of this. But then I know
   people who speak more than one language :-) lots of
   them actually. <blush>

   For linux users, here's my .xmodmaprc:
   tj

! start
!
! activate with xmodmap ~/.xmodmaprc
!
clear Shift
clear Lock
clear Control
clear Mod1
clear Mod2
clear Mod3
clear Mod4
clear Mod5
! Swap Capslock and Left Control Key
remove Lock = Caps_Lock
remove Control = Control_L
keycode 66 = Control_L
keycode 37 = Caps_Lock
add Lock = Caps_Lock
add Control = Control_L
! assign left super key to windows key
keycode 115 = Super_L
! assign left hyper key to tab key
keycode 23 = Hyper_L
! assign tab to right control key
keycode 109 = Tab
! assign right meta key to right alt key
!keycode 113 = Meta_R
! reset bits
add    Shift   = Shift_L     Shift_R
add    Lock    = Caps_Lock
add    Control = Control_L
add    Mod1    = Alt_L       Alt_R
add    Mod2    = Num_Lock
add    Mod3    = Super_L
add    Mod5    = Hyper_L
!!! done
> -- 
> Ralf
> _______________________________________________
> help-gnu-emacs mailing list
> help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org
> http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/help-gnu-emacs

-- 
Tim Johnson <tim@johnsons-web.com>
      http://www.alaska-internet-solutions.com

Re: C-p, C-b, C-f, and C-n... why?

[Eli Zaretskii]

> From: Mathias Dahl <brakjoller@gmail.com>
> Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2005 09:28:17 +0100
> 
> 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?

The tutorial teaches how to use Emacs for editing and moving around
text, not for playing games.

Re: C-p, C-b, C-f, and C-n... why?

[Stefan Monnier]

>> >    There are several ways you can do this.  You can use the arrow keys,
>> >    but it's more efficient to keep your hands in the standard position
>> >    and use the commands C-p, C-b, C-f, and C-n.  These characters
>> >    are equivalent to the four arrow keys, like this:
>> 
>> I think phrases like "but it's more efficient" is a bit dangerous. I'd
>> rather want something like "but some feel it's more efficient".  It all
>> depends on the user, his keyboard, his habits etc.

> I have yet to see a keyboard with arrow keys close to the rest of the
> keys.  They are always somewhere on the fringes.  So, habits aside,
> the distance to C-f is shorter than to the right arrow key, and that
> is an objective fact.  Of course, people might prefer a less efficient
> way, e.g., if they type so slowly that the additional time is
> negligible.

That's beside the point: in some contexts arrows are more efficient, and in
some contexts control keys are more efficient.  Claiming that control keys
are objectively always superior is just silly, so I agree that we should at
least add a "generally" between "it's" and "more".  I'd also add an "of
course" between "you can" and "use the arrow keys" and an "in the long run"
after "more efficient":

    There are several ways you can do this.  You can of course use the arrow
    keys, but it's generally more efficient in the long run to keep your
    hands in the standard position and use the commands C-p, C-b, C-f, and
    C-n.  These characters are equivalent to the four arrow keys, like this:


-- Stefan

Re: C-p, C-b, C-f, and C-n... why?

[Mathias Dahl]

Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> writes:

>     There are several ways you can do this.  You can of course use the arrow
>     keys, but it's generally more efficient in the long run to keep your
>     hands in the standard position and use the commands C-p, C-b, C-f, and
>     C-n.  These characters are equivalent to the four arrow keys, like this:

How about

     There are several ways you can do this.  You can use the arrow
     keys or you can use C-p, C-b, C-f, and C-n.  Generally, many find
     the latter more efficient in the long run because it keeps your
     hands in the standard position.  These characters are equivalent
     to the four arrow keys like this:

Thus avoiding expressions like "but it is generally more..." which
forces an opinion in the user. IMHO, of course. :)

/Mathias

Re: C-p, C-b, C-f, and C-n... why?

[Per Abrahamsen]

Mathias Dahl <brakjoller@gmail.com> writes:

> Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> writes:
>
>>     There are several ways you can do this.  You can of course use the arrow
>>     keys, but it's generally more efficient in the long run to keep your
>>     hands in the standard position and use the commands C-p, C-b, C-f, and
>>     C-n.  These characters are equivalent to the four arrow keys, like this:
>
> How about
>
>      There are several ways you can do this.  You can use the arrow
>      keys or you can use C-p, C-b, C-f, and C-n.  Generally, many find
>      the latter more efficient in the long run because it keeps your
>      hands in the standard position.  These characters are equivalent
>      to the four arrow keys like this:

    There are several ways you can do this.  You can use the arrow
    keys or you can use C-p, C-b, C-f, and C-n.  The latter can be
    more efficient in some situations, because it keeps your hands in
    the standard position.  These characters are equivalent to the
    four arrow keys like this:

Re: C-p, C-b, C-f, and C-n... why?

[Lennart Borgman]

Mathias Dahl wrote:

>Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> writes:
>
>  
>
>>    There are several ways you can do this.  You can of course use the arrow
>>    keys, but it's generally more efficient in the long run to keep your
>>    hands in the standard position and use the commands C-p, C-b, C-f, and
>>    C-n.  These characters are equivalent to the four arrow keys, like this:
>>    
>>
>
>How about
>
>     There are several ways you can do this.  You can use the arrow
>     keys or you can use C-p, C-b, C-f, and C-n.  Generally, many find
>     the latter more efficient in the long run because it keeps your
>     hands in the standard position.  These characters are equivalent
>     to the four arrow keys like this:
>
>Thus avoiding expressions like "but it is generally more..." which
>forces an opinion in the user. IMHO, of course. :)
>  
>
I vote for this one! It addresses the newbie which is the purpose.

RE: C-p, C-b, C-f, and C-n... why?

[Drew Adams]

        There are several ways you can do this.  You can use the arrow
        keys or you can use C-p, C-b, C-f, and C-n.  The latter can be
        more efficient in some situations, because it keeps your hands in
        the standard position.  These characters are equivalent to the
        four arrow keys like this:

 You can use the arrow keys or `C-p', `C-n', `C-b', and `C-f':

   [up],    `C-p' - blah blah
   [down],  `C-n' - blah blah
   [left],  `C-b' - blah blah
   [right], `C-f' - blah blah

That says everything that needs to be said. There is no need to explain the
clever design, make claims about efficiency, or reference "standard
position" (do you wonder what that is?).

People are smart enough to pick the alternatives they like. The important
thing here is to let them know 1) that there are alternatives, and 2) which
alternatives correspond to which.

Re: C-p, C-b, C-f, and C-n... why?

[Xavier Maillard]

   From: Lennart Borgman <lennart.borgman.073@student.lu.se>
   Cc: help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org, Emacs Devel <emacs-devel@gnu.org>

   Mathias Dahl wrote:

   >How about
   >
   >     There are several ways you can do this.  You can use the arrow
   >     keys or you can use C-p, C-b, C-f, and C-n.  Generally, many find
   >     the latter more efficient in the long run because it keeps your
   >     hands in the standard position.  These characters are equivalent
   >     to the four arrow keys like this:
   >
   >Thus avoiding expressions like "but it is generally more..." which
   >forces an opinion in the user. IMHO, of course. :)
   >  
   >
   I vote for this one! It addresses the newbie which is the purpose.

My vote goes to this one too.

Xavier

Re: C-p, C-b, C-f, and C-n... why?

[Lennart Borgman]

Xavier Maillard wrote:

>   From: Lennart Borgman <lennart.borgman.073@student.lu.se>
>   Cc: help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org, Emacs Devel <emacs-devel@gnu.org>
>
>   Mathias Dahl wrote:
>
>   >How about
>   >
>   >     There are several ways you can do this.  You can use the arrow
>   >     keys or you can use C-p, C-b, C-f, and C-n.  Generally, many find
>   >     the latter more efficient in the long run because it keeps your
>   >     hands in the standard position.  These characters are equivalent
>   >     to the four arrow keys like this:
>   >
>   >Thus avoiding expressions like "but it is generally more..." which
>   >forces an opinion in the user. IMHO, of course. :)
>   >  
>   >
>   I vote for this one! It addresses the newbie which is the purpose.
>
>My vote goes to this one too.
>
>Xavier
>  
>
And I think Per A enhanced it a bit ;-)

Re: C-p, C-b, C-f, and C-n... why?

[Mathias Dahl]

Per Abrahamsen <abraham@dina.kvl.dk> writes:

> Mathias Dahl <brakjoller@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> writes:
>>
>>>     There are several ways you can do this.  You can of course use the arrow
>>>     keys, but it's generally more efficient in the long run to keep your
>>>     hands in the standard position and use the commands C-p, C-b, C-f, and
>>>     C-n.  These characters are equivalent to the four arrow keys, like this:
>>
>> How about
>>
>>      There are several ways you can do this.  You can use the arrow
>>      keys or you can use C-p, C-b, C-f, and C-n.  Generally, many find
>>      the latter more efficient in the long run because it keeps your
>>      hands in the standard position.  These characters are equivalent
>>      to the four arrow keys like this:
>
>     There are several ways you can do this.  You can use the arrow
>     keys or you can use C-p, C-b, C-f, and C-n.  The latter can be
>     more efficient in some situations, because it keeps your hands in
>     the standard position.  These characters are equivalent to the
>     four arrow keys like this:

Even better :) Did you send this to gnu.emacs.devel too?

Re: C-p, C-b, C-f, and C-n... why?

[Eli Zaretskii]

> From: Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca>
> Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2005 01:15:21 -0500
> 
> in some contexts arrows are more efficient, and in some contexts
> control keys are more efficient.

I wrote precisely that elsewhere in this thread; thanks for repeating
it to me.

> Claiming that control keys are objectively always superior is just
> silly

Yes, but who was claiming that?

Re: C-p, C-b, C-f, and C-n... why?

[Björn Lindström]

Mathias Dahl <brakjoller@gmail.com> 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.

Re: C-p, C-b, C-f, and C-n... why?

[Lennart Borgman]

Mathias Dahl wrote:

>Per Abrahamsen <abraham@dina.kvl.dk> writes:
>
>  
>
>>Mathias Dahl <brakjoller@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>>    
>>
>>>Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> writes:
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>>>    There are several ways you can do this.  You can of course use the arrow
>>>>    keys, but it's generally more efficient in the long run to keep your
>>>>    hands in the standard position and use the commands C-p, C-b, C-f, and
>>>>    C-n.  These characters are equivalent to the four arrow keys, like this:
>>>>        
>>>>
>>>How about
>>>
>>>     There are several ways you can do this.  You can use the arrow
>>>     keys or you can use C-p, C-b, C-f, and C-n.  Generally, many find
>>>     the latter more efficient in the long run because it keeps your
>>>     hands in the standard position.  These characters are equivalent
>>>     to the four arrow keys like this:
>>>      
>>>
>>    There are several ways you can do this.  You can use the arrow
>>    keys or you can use C-p, C-b, C-f, and C-n.  The latter can be
>>    more efficient in some situations, because it keeps your hands in
>>    the standard position.  These characters are equivalent to the
>>    four arrow keys like this:
>>    
>>
No, Per did not so I am doing this now. Could we please change to this text?

Re: C-p, C-b, C-f, and C-n... why?

[Xavier Maillard]

   From: bkhl@elektrubadur.se (=?utf-8?Q?Bj=C3=B6rn_Lindstr=C3=B6m?=)
   Mail-Copies-To: never

   Mathias Dahl <brakjoller@gmail.com> 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

Re: C-p, C-b, C-f, and C-n... why?

[Richard M. Stallman]

I think the current tutorial text about this is fine.

Re: C-p, C-b, C-f, and C-n... why?

[don provan]

Mathias Dahl <brakjoller@gmail.com> 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<Arrow> 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<number>, 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

Re: C-p, C-b, C-f, and C-n... why?

[Mathias Dahl]

bkhl@elektrubadur.se (Björn Lindström) writes:

> Mathias Dahl <brakjoller@gmail.com> 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.

If you find yourself in some mode when you for some reason need to
"move around" a lot, and maybe at some points execute another command,
using the arrow keys with the right hand, and executing the other
commands, whatever they might be (which is not interesting, my example
with games was maybe bad), is in my opinion, quite nice.

Anyway, what I reacted to was some text earlier in the discussion that
sort of "forced an opinion" on me, and I though maybe it could be
written in a more "diplomatic" way if we should keep it in the
tutorial. "small" things like this can be quite heated.

I liked the suggestion made by Drew, where the keys was just
documented and when no special arguments was made for using either of
them.