Re: [RP] At long last: success with ratpoison

[Chris Beggy]

On 01 Nov 2003 22:18:00 -0800, Shawn Betts <address@hidden> wrote: 

> Ryan Yeske <address@hidden> writes:
> 
> > twb <address@hidden> writes:
> > 
> > > Quoth Albert Meier <address@hidden> on or about Sat, 01 Nov 2003 11:28:40 
> > > +0100:
> > > > square. So the magic combination for me is C-a and not C-t (The reason 
> > > > being 
> > > > an entry /etc/ratpoisonrc).
> > > > I can only guess at why the gentoo developers put it in there: to avoid 
> > > 
> > > screen(1) compatibility.
> > 
> > Yes.  That's almost certainly why.
> > 
> > IIRC, I argued early on (like ratpoison 0.0.2 days or something) that
> > C-a should be the default out of the box, for the same reason
> > (screen(1) compat), and Shawn disagreed, and that was that :).  I
> > still believe, at some level that C-a should be, or should have been
> > the default, but its definitely too late now, I think.
> 
> I offer an argument against using C-a as the default because screen
> uses C-a as a default. It seems a number of users use ratpoison and
> screen at the same time. They boot ratpoison, open a terminal and
> connect to their screen session. If rp used C-a as the default then a
> default setup would make it difficult to control screen. Imagine
> trying to get a C-a key in emacs inside the screen session: C-a a a. 

I'm a user of screen under ratpoison, in exactly the way Shawn
describes.  It makes complete sense to keep their control entry
keys, C-a and C-t, different, since they serve two different roles.

Chris