bug#24224: Enable 'h, j, k, l' key navigation where ever possible

bug#24224: Enable 'h, j, k, l' key navigation where ever possible

[Mohammed Sadik]

This is a feature request.

There are several buffers where alphabet keys have no effect.
In such buffers, it would be nice to enable the keys h, j, k, and l, for
navigation, and even further q for quit (or close the buffer), o for
other window, etc.  This might also help resolve the pinky problem a little.

The buffers that can include those key for navigation can be
help-mode, apropos-mode, woman, package-menu-mode (package listings),
compilation-mode, customize (Custom-mode), info-mode, and so on.

bug#24224: Enable 'h, j, k, l' key navigation where ever possible

[Eli Zaretskii]

> From: Mohammed Sadik <sadiqpkp@gmail.com>
> Date: Sun, 14 Aug 2016 12:22:38 +0530
> 
> There are several buffers where alphabet keys have no effect.
> In such buffers, it would be nice to enable the keys h, j, k, and l, for
> navigation, and even further q for quit (or close the buffer), o for
> other window, etc.  This might also help resolve the pinky problem a little.
> 
> The buffers that can include those key for navigation can be
> help-mode, apropos-mode, woman, package-menu-mode (package listings),
> compilation-mode, customize (Custom-mode), info-mode, and so on.

Some of these keys are already bound in some of these modes.  For
example, h and l have bindings in help-mode.

So I guess this could be some optional minor mode, off by default.

Thanks.

bug#24224: Enable 'h, j, k, l' key navigation where ever possible

[npostavs]

severity 24224 wishlist
quit

Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> writes:

>> From: Mohammed Sadik <sadiqpkp@gmail.com>
>> Date: Sun, 14 Aug 2016 12:22:38 +0530
>> 
>> There are several buffers where alphabet keys have no effect.
>> In such buffers, it would be nice to enable the keys h, j, k, and l, for
>> navigation, and even further q for quit (or close the buffer), o for
>> other window, etc.  This might also help resolve the pinky problem a little.
>> 
>> The buffers that can include those key for navigation can be
>> help-mode, apropos-mode, woman, package-menu-mode (package listings),
>> compilation-mode, customize (Custom-mode), info-mode, and so on.
>
> Some of these keys are already bound in some of these modes.  For
> example, h and l have bindings in help-mode.
>
> So I guess this could be some optional minor mode, off by default.
>
> Thanks.

view-mode has code for the k and j bindings, but commented out:

(defvar view-mode-map
  (let ((map (make-sparse-keymap)))
    ...
    (define-key map "q" 'View-quit)
    ...
    ;; (define-key map "k" 'View-scroll-line-backward)
    (define-key map "y" 'View-scroll-line-backward)
    ;; (define-key map "j" 'View-scroll-line-forward)
    ...
    (define-key map "o" 'View-scroll-to-buffer-end)
    ...
    (define-key map "?" 'describe-mode)	; Maybe do as less instead? See above.
    (define-key map "h" 'describe-mode)

bug#24224: Enable 'h, j, k, l' key navigation where ever possible

[Stefan Kangas]

Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> writes:

>> From: Mohammed Sadik <sadiqpkp@gmail.com>
>> Date: Sun, 14 Aug 2016 12:22:38 +0530
>>
>> There are several buffers where alphabet keys have no effect.
>> In such buffers, it would be nice to enable the keys h, j, k, and l, for
>> navigation, and even further q for quit (or close the buffer), o for
>> other window, etc.  This might also help resolve the pinky problem a little.
>>
>> The buffers that can include those key for navigation can be
>> help-mode, apropos-mode, woman, package-menu-mode (package listings),
>> compilation-mode, customize (Custom-mode), info-mode, and so on.
>
> Some of these keys are already bound in some of these modes.  For
> example, h and l have bindings in help-mode.
>
> So I guess this could be some optional minor mode, off by default.

(That was 4 years ago.)

The request is to bind 'h', 'j', 'k' and 'l' where possible, presumably
to be more like vim.  I think this use case is mostly covered by viper
and/or the third-party evil.

Eli pointed out that this would conflict with current key bindings, and
I can only add that it would not be worth usurping these key bindings
everywhere when we already have 'f', 'b', 'n' and 'p'.

Eli also suggested that this could be an optional minor mode.  I don't
see why we couldn't include such a package in GNU ELPA, but I don't
think it makes sense to keep a request like this open in our bug tracker
indefinitely if no one is actively working on it.

Any other opinions?  And is anyone working on this?

Best regards,
Stefan Kangas

bug#24224: Enable 'h, j, k, l' key navigation where ever possible

[Stefan Kangas]

Stefan Kangas <stefan@marxist.se> writes:

> Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> writes:
>
>>> From: Mohammed Sadik <sadiqpkp@gmail.com>
>>> Date: Sun, 14 Aug 2016 12:22:38 +0530
>>>
>>> There are several buffers where alphabet keys have no effect.
>>> In such buffers, it would be nice to enable the keys h, j, k, and l, for
>>> navigation, and even further q for quit (or close the buffer), o for
>>> other window, etc.  This might also help resolve the pinky problem a little.
>>>
>>> The buffers that can include those key for navigation can be
>>> help-mode, apropos-mode, woman, package-menu-mode (package listings),
>>> compilation-mode, customize (Custom-mode), info-mode, and so on.
>>
>> Some of these keys are already bound in some of these modes.  For
>> example, h and l have bindings in help-mode.
>>
>> So I guess this could be some optional minor mode, off by default.
>
> (That was 4 years ago.)
>
> The request is to bind 'h', 'j', 'k' and 'l' where possible, presumably
> to be more like vim.  I think this use case is mostly covered by viper
> and/or the third-party evil.
>
> Eli pointed out that this would conflict with current key bindings, and
> I can only add that it would not be worth usurping these key bindings
> everywhere when we already have 'f', 'b', 'n' and 'p'.
>
> Eli also suggested that this could be an optional minor mode.  I don't
> see why we couldn't include such a package in GNU ELPA, but I don't
> think it makes sense to keep a request like this open in our bug tracker
> indefinitely if no one is actively working on it.
>
> Any other opinions?  And is anyone working on this?

No further comments within almost 6 weeks, so I'll assume that there are
no objections to the above.  I'm therefore closing this bug now.