From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Mathias Dahl Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.help Subject: Re: C-p, C-b, C-f, and C-n... why? Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2005 09:28:17 +0100 Message-ID: References: <1133329096.909577.80790@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <11pmkm7sol448a9@corp.supernews.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: main.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1134462687 31182 80.91.229.2 (13 Dec 2005 08:31:27 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2005 08:31:27 +0000 (UTC) Original-X-From: help-gnu-emacs-bounces+geh-help-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Tue Dec 13 09:31:25 2005 Return-path: Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by ciao.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Em5Xq-0004Uq-G6 for geh-help-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Tue, 13 Dec 2005 09:30:00 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Em5YM-0005L3-TR for geh-help-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Tue, 13 Dec 2005 03:30:31 -0500 Original-Path: shelby.stanford.edu!newsfeed.stanford.edu!news.tele.dk!news.tele.dk!small.news.tele.dk!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail Original-Newsgroups: gnu.emacs.help Original-Lines: 31 Original-X-Trace: individual.net sacKoOjlIuzJCf1yoXhIUgk82a9kD94BvA2lFbFRBoNa3HjS6n User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.0.50 (windows-nt) Cancel-Lock: sha1:T0WmCDddX5nYjkaQpaTQTvlfYZs= Original-Xref: shelby.stanford.edu gnu.emacs.help:136307 Original-To: help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org X-BeenThere: help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Users list for the GNU Emacs text editor List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: help-gnu-emacs-bounces+geh-help-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: help-gnu-emacs-bounces+geh-help-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.help:31925 Archived-At: Eli Zaretskii 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.