[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: C-j considered harmful (not really)
From: |
Drew Adams |
Subject: |
RE: C-j considered harmful (not really) |
Date: |
Tue, 24 Nov 2009 09:51:36 -0800 |
> > `C-j' _IS_ newline. OK, some people don't know that. But
> > most programmers of UNIX, Linux, C, etc. do know it, and
> > others can surely learn it - no biggee. It
> > is elegant to use the key to self-insert, the same way it
> > is elegant to use the key `a' to insert an `a' character.
>
> Fine, but note that `C-j' already has different
> non-self-insert-newline semantics in other modes:
I did not say that `C-j' should _always_ be self-inserting.
The same is true for `a' or `A' and so on - such keys are often bound to other
commands in various modes.
- Re: C-j considered harmful (not really), (continued)
- Re: C-j considered harmful (not really), Juri Linkov, 2009/11/18
- Re: C-j considered harmful (not really), Per Starbäck, 2009/11/22
- Re: C-j considered harmful (not really), Deniz Dogan, 2009/11/22
- Re: C-j considered harmful (not really), Stefan Monnier, 2009/11/22
- Re: C-j considered harmful (not really), Juri Linkov, 2009/11/23
- Re: C-j considered harmful (not really), Per Starbäck, 2009/11/23
- RE: C-j considered harmful (not really), Drew Adams, 2009/11/23
- RE: C-j considered harmful (not really), Drew Adams, 2009/11/23
- Re: C-j considered harmful (not really), Per Starbäck, 2009/11/23
- Re: C-j considered harmful (not really), Juri Linkov, 2009/11/24
- RE: C-j considered harmful (not really),
Drew Adams <=