From: Clementson, Bill <Bill_C<lementson@jd...> - 2003-05-16 21:38:15
I uploaded the FSF key binding changes to CVS a week
ago and have not had any feedback on the changes. I
guess that means one of two things:
1. Everybody has downloaded the changes, thinks they
are terrific and has no comments or suggestions for=20
2. Everybody is preoccupied with work and life and=20
have assumed that the key binding changes either won't
affect them or that they will be ok.
Being the optimist, I have assumed that #1 is the case :)
I have updated the ilisp documentation to reflect the=20
changes to the fsf key bindings today and am considering
this enhancement to be now complete.
This SF.net email is sponsored by: If flattening out C++ or Java
code to make your application fit in a relational database is painful,=20
don't do it! Check out ObjectStore. Now part of Progress Software.
Ilisp-devel mailing list
From: Clementson, Bill <Bill_C<lementson@jd...> - 2003-05-20 15:57:10
I have uploaded a new version of the FSF key binding changes to CVS.
This version incorporates the following changes (based on suggestions by
Andreas Fuchs, Hannu Koivisto, Edi Weitz & Bob Rogers):
1. All standard command bindings are now of the form "C-c C-key1 C-key2"
2. All action-and-go command bindings are now of the form "C-c C-key1
3. The "C-c C-g" prefix has been changed to "C-c C-f".
Please download the new bindings from cvs, try them out & let me know if
you think any other changes are needed.
From: Andreas Fuchs <asf@vo...> - 2003-05-17 23:02:02
On 2003-05-16, Bill Clementson <Bill_Clementson@...> wrote:
> 1. Everybody has downloaded the changes, thinks they
> are terrific and has no comments or suggestions for
Hm, I downloaded them, and I think they are a step in the right
direction. What I'd like to have, though, are key bindings which don't
require me to release the Control key in the middle of the command. This
is pretty awkward on this keyboard. Maybe it would be a good thing to
make both versions available, as the JDEE does it, IIRC. That would
give, for example:
C-c C-q C-a as well as C-c C-q a, etc.
What do you think about this?
Andreas Fuchs, <asf@...>, asf@..., antifuchs