Chord bindings for prev-buffer and next-buffer?

Chord bindings for prev-buffer and next-buffer?

[Drew Adams]

The new commands `prev-buffer' and `next-buffer' are very welcome.

With chord bindings, you could use these commands to easily and quickly
cycle among buffers. A glance at the subject of switching buffers at
http://www.emacswiki.org/cgi-bin/wiki/CategoryBufferSwitching shows that
such buffer cycling is a need that has been answered many times by many
different libraries.

However, the default bindings for these commands are `C-x <left>' and `C-x
<right>', which are not chords, so cannot be simply pressed and held to
cycle among buffers.

Can we find some available chord bindings and change these defaults?

(In my own Emacs I use `C-<pause>' and `M-<pause>', but I'm not suggesting
that those are particularly good choices - they just happened to be
available to me.)

 - Drew

Re: Chord bindings for prev-buffer and next-buffer?

[Matt Hodges]

>>>>> Drew Adams writes:

 > However, the default bindings for these commands are `C-x <left>'
 > and `C-x <right>', which are not chords, so cannot be simply
 > pressed and held to cycle among buffers.

 > Can we find some available chord bindings and change these
 > defaults?

If none are available, then I think that "C-x <left> C-x z z z z ..."
is really not too bad.

Re: Chord bindings for prev-buffer and next-buffer?

[Stefan Monnier]

>> However, the default bindings for these commands are `C-x <left>'
>> and `C-x <right>', which are not chords, so cannot be simply
>> pressed and held to cycle among buffers.

>> Can we find some available chord bindings and change these
>> defaults?

> If none are available, then I think that "C-x <left> C-x z z z z ..."
> is really not too bad.

I guess we could ideally allow:

  down-control x left left left left up-control

but that would require some changes to create and handle events for
the up-modifier and down-modifier events.


        Stefan "who used to have such a local hack where the above sequence
                was called [down-control C-x C-left C-left C-left C-up-control]
                tho now tat I think about it, it might have been better to
                call it [C-moddown C-x C-left C-left C-left C-modup] except
                that it would have made some sequences ambiguous such as
                [M-C-moddown M-C-foo M-C-modup] where it's not clear whether
                the moddown is because meta was already down and control got
                pressed, and it's similar unclear whether it's the meta or
                the control key that was released in the the modup."