From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Leo Subject: Re: counter-intuitive key bindings Date: Sat, 28 Jul 2007 19:35:17 +0100 Message-ID: References: <87ejisycqy.fsf@bzg.ath.cx> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1IEr8s-0007TB-Lh for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Sat, 28 Jul 2007 14:35:54 -0400 Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1IEr8r-0007Sz-MQ for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Sat, 28 Jul 2007 14:35:54 -0400 Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IEr8r-0007Sw-Hf for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Sat, 28 Jul 2007 14:35:53 -0400 Received: from main.gmane.org ([80.91.229.2] helo=ciao.gmane.org) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS-1.0:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1IEr8r-0002ep-6z for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Sat, 28 Jul 2007 14:35:53 -0400 Received: from list by ciao.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1IEr8k-0007wo-JF for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Sat, 28 Jul 2007 20:35:46 +0200 Received: from sl392.st-edmunds.cam.ac.uk ([131.111.223.202]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Sat, 28 Jul 2007 20:35:46 +0200 Received: from sdl.web by sl392.st-edmunds.cam.ac.uk with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Sat, 28 Jul 2007 20:35:46 +0200 List-Id: "General discussions about Org-mode." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org@gnu.org To: emacs-orgmode@gnu.org On 2007-07-28 12:43 +0100, Bastien wrote: > Leo writes: > >> These key bindings are to move from one set of the TODO items to >> another, which intuitively are a vertical motion. > > Well, I don't share this intuition. > > Since S- cycles through TODO states, it's consistent to use > C-S- to cycle through TODO-states sets. > > And since S- changes the priority state, i guess C-S- > could cycle through *priority-states sets* - if any. (I actually have no > idea whether priority-states sets would be useful to someone.) In this case, I feel there should a consistent definition of key bindings. One excellent example is vc, it is just so easy to remember. I have been an regular user of org, and I have already forgotten that S-up/down does priority change after one month's break. -- Leo (GPG Key: 9283AA3F)