Hi, currently C-h is mapped in `evil-window-map` (thus C-w C-h) while this is great in terms of vim compatibility it's bad for Emacs integration. Because prefixkey C-h describes the keymap I think it's far more valuable to drop the vim compatibility here (esp. since C-w h does the same). What's your take? Michael
On 2011-09-06 21:51 +0200, Michael Markert wrote:
Because prefixkey C-h describes the keymap I think it's far more valuable to drop the vim compatibility here (esp. since C-w h does the same).
I don't understand. What's the harm in binding "C-w C-h" to a window command? -- Vegard
On 8 Sep 2011, Vegard Øye wrote:
On 2011-09-06 21:51 +0200, Michael Markert wrote:
Because prefixkey C-h describes the keymap I think it's far more valuable to drop the vim compatibility here (esp. since C-w h does the same).
I don't understand. What's the harm in binding "C-w C-h" to a window command?
I thought the second part of the mail explained that:
Because prefixkey C-h describes the keymap I think it's far more valuable to drop the vim compatibility here (esp. since C-w h does the same).
So C-w C-h would have shown what keys are accessible as C-w something. I can't find anything in the docs right now, but test C-x C-h (which is not bound, see C-h k C-x C-h) for example, and tell me if it's useful[1] ;) Footnotes: [1] Well the vanilla version isn't that great, but with anything and `descbinds-anything` it's great. Michael
Because prefixkey C-h describes the keymap I think it's far more valuable to drop the vim compatibility here (esp. since C-w h does the same).
So C-w C-h would have shown what keys are accessible as C-w something. I can't find anything in the docs right now, but test C-x C-h (which is not bound, see C-h k C-x C-h) for example, and tell me if it's useful[1] ;)
I actually didn't understand either but now I get your point and I have to agree with you.
Footnotes:
[1] Well the vanilla version isn't that great, but with anything and `descbinds-anything` it's great.
By the way, just out of curiosity, what does your Footnotes mean? York
On 8 Sep 2011, York Zhao wrote:
So C-w C-h would have shown what keys are accessible as C-w something. I can't find anything in the docs right now, but test C-x C-h (which is not bound, see C-h k C-x C-h) for example, and tell me if it's useful[1] ;)
I actually didn't understand either but now I get your point and I have to agree with you.
Well, I guess I should have added the example right away :/
Footnotes:
[1] Well the vanilla version isn't that great, but with anything and `descbinds-anything` it's great.
By the way, just out of curiosity, what does your Footnotes mean?
The section? That's added by org. The note/package? Well it's a nice front-end to describe-bindings using anything. Michael
Any updates here? I found the link I wanted to include: ,- https://www.gnu.org/software/emacs/elisp/html_node/Key-Binding-Conventions.h... | Don't bind C-h following any prefix character (including C-c). If you | don't bind C-h, it is automatically available as a help character for | listing the subcommands of the prefix character. `---- Michael
On 2011-09-16 22:19 +0200, Michael Markert wrote:
,- https://www.gnu.org/software/emacs/elisp/html_node/Key-Binding-Conventions.h... | Don't bind C-h following any prefix character (including C-c). | If you don't bind C-h, it is automatically available as a help | character for listing the subcommands of the prefix character. `----
Removed in commit 83654aa. -- Vegard
On 16 Sep 2011, Vegard Øye wrote:
On 2011-09-16 22:19 +0200, Michael Markert wrote:
,- https://www.gnu.org/software/emacs/elisp/html_node/Key-Binding-Conventions.h... | Don't bind C-h following any prefix character (including C-c). | If you don't bind C-h, it is automatically available as a help | character for listing the subcommands of the prefix character. `----
Removed in commit 83654aa.
Thank you! Michael
participants (3)
-
Michael Markert -
Vegard Øye -
York Zhao