Re: [Orgmode] Re: counter-intuitive key bindings

[Carsten Dominik]

On Jul 28, 2007, at 20:35, Leo wrote:

> On 2007-07-28 12:43 +0100, Bastien wrote:
> > Leo <address@hidden> 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-<left/right> cycles through TODO states, it's consistent to 
> > use
> > C-S-<left/right> to cycle through TODO-states sets.
> >
> > And since S-<up/down> changes the priority state, i guess 
> > C-S-<up/down>
> > 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.

What do you mean with "consistent definition of key bindings".

> 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.

I have been trying very hard to make the key bindings as logical
as possible - but there is a huge amount of commands in org,
and many keys are needed.

That said, the S-up/down for priorities does leas to a couple
of inconsistencies, in particular between agenda and org-mode buffers.

- Carsten


> --
> Leo <sdl.web AT gmail.com>                         (GPG Key: 9283AA3F)
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Emacs-orgmode mailing list
> address@hidden
> http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-orgmode

--
Carsten Dominik
Sterrenkundig Instituut "Anton Pannekoek"
Universiteit van Amsterdam
Kruislaan 403
NL-1098SJ Amsterdam
phone: +31 20 525 7477