Vegard Øye <[email protected]> writes:
On 2010-07-10 10:57, Štěpán Němec wrote:
While I understand what the change was supposed to do, I don't really understand *why* you did it. Vegard? Does it solve any problems or bring any actual advantages?
I added it on the basis on an e-mail I received about C-i conflicting with the use of <tab> as a completion key. (This is quite popular, judging by http://www.emacswiki.org/emacs/TabCompletion and the storm of blog posts retrieved by Google.)
However, binding C-i in vi state shouldn't affect the binding of <tab> in Insert state -- it would only be a problem if you for some reason complete words in vi state. Evidently, some people do, as I did receive a confirmation that my change fixed the problem.
... just to introduce a different one ;-) I wonder how those "some people" do the completion in Vi state. I really don't think it's a good change, for the reasons I gave in the previous mail -- major modes often do something with the Tab key, and you now clobber every such binding (in Vi state) with some arbitrary one hardcoded at Vimpulse load time. I also don't really understand how the change fixes the completion problem (or what the problem really was), because even before the change C-i and <tab> were prefectly different in GUI for me (e.g. in Org mode <tab> is org-cycle, C-i is vimpulse-jump-forward). Štěpán