On Fri, Jun 19, 2009 at 12:19 PM, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes<lasgout...@lyx.org> wrote: > BH <bewih...@gmail.com> writes: >> So one possibility would be to do the following: >> >> #\bind "C-Up" "buffer-begin" >> #\bind "C-Down" "buffer-end" >> \bind "C-Up" "inset-begin" >> \bind "C-Down" "inset-end" > > I would like it too, but I feared people would not like it... I could do > that in cua.bind too.
I agree: that's why I said doing this might be confusing for novices (though I'm tempted to do it for myself). >> I'm worried about a proliferation of default cursor movement bindings >> that do roughly the same thing, which can be confusing for novices or >> standard users. (Of course, expert users are free to define their own >> bindings.) On the other hand, this proposal might be confusing for >> novices to have C-Up do something other than the Mac standard >> move-to-top-of-document. I'm just not sure what is best. > > How do we get to know? I had no feedback when I committed to trunk. How about trying this? -- \bind "space" "inset-begin" \bind "Return" "inset-end" That would surely get a response! >> I'm tempted to leave inset-begin[-select] and inset-end[-select] >> unbound by default. > > I think it is a bad idea. Each move should have its Shfted version (it > is useful for select-all type of things). I meant: leave inset-begin, inset-begin-select, inset-end, and inset-end-select all unbound. That way no one would be upset, but probably few would discover it. BH
