* C-M-j or M-j? What's going on with these bindings?
@ 2004-04-26 14:23 Alan Mackenzie
0 siblings, 0 replies; only message in thread
From: Alan Mackenzie @ 2004-04-26 14:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
M-j and C-M-j are both bound to `indent-new-comment-line'. These
bindings are adjacent to eachother in .../lisp/bindings.el.
This seems a bit like a waste of a good binding.
The documentation (in programs.texi) mentions only C-M-j, not M-j.
Intuitively, M-j seems to me to be the better binding - as well as being
easier to type, it's kind of the arithmetic mean of C-j and M-;.
I think programs.texi should mention both bindings.
What's up with these bindings and their documentation?
--
Alan Mackenzie (Munich, Germany)
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] only message in thread
only message in thread, other threads:[~2004-04-26 14:23 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: (only message) (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2004-04-26 14:23 C-M-j or M-j? What's going on with these bindings? Alan Mackenzie
Code repositories for project(s) associated with this external index
https://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/emacs.git
https://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/emacs/org-mode.git
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.