On May 9, 2010, at 12:03 AM, Scott Randby wrote:
On 05/08/2010 04:22 PM, Friedrich Delgado Friedrichs wrote:
Hi!
Carsten Dominik schrieb:
I am wondering:
How many of your are using these keys
C-c C-f
C-c C-b
C-c C-n
C-c C-p
Never. I always use the speed commands since they became availabl
How many of your are using these keys
C-c C-f
C-c C-b
C-c C-n
C-c C-p
I use them 1000 times a day, but I like the idea of changing them to C-M-[fbnp].
But I would also add C-c C-u (then C-M-u) to the list.
Ecce
___
Ema
Bernt Hansen writes:
> I currently use all of the four navigation keys above. C-c C-n and C-c
> C-p are the two I use the most. If there was some other key binding
> that would do the same thing from inside the body of a task that would
> be fine with me.
Carsten Dominik writes:
> what do yo
On 2010-05-09 12:43 +0100, Carsten Dominik wrote:
> what do you think about C-M-f, C-M-b, C-M-n, C-M-p as alternative
> bindings? These seem to make *a lot* of sense, because, as many here
> have pointed out, they are so much better repeatable (Keep C-M- down,
> press the character.)
It is terribl
On 05/09/2010 04:26 PM, Also sprach Leo:
On 2010-05-09 12:43 +0100, Carsten Dominik wrote:
what do you think about C-M-f, C-M-b, C-M-n, C-M-p as alternative
bindings? These seem to make *a lot* of sense, because, as many here
have pointed out, they are so much better repeatable (Keep C-M- down
In short
What I have to do (minimal code in .emacs and .org) to display an image?
This image will be maintained when I export the file?
iimage could be included in org distribution?
Daniel
2010/5/8 Carsten Dominik
>
> On May 7, 2010, at 2:58 PM, Dan Davison wrote:
>
> Carsten Dominik w
On May 9, 2010, at 4:26 PM, Leo wrote:
On 2010-05-09 12:43 +0100, Carsten Dominik wrote:
what do you think about C-M-f, C-M-b, C-M-n, C-M-p as alternative
bindings? These seem to make *a lot* of sense, because, as many here
have pointed out, they are so much better repeatable (Keep C-M- down,
Leo wrote:
> On 2010-05-09 12:43 +0100, Carsten Dominik wrote:
> > what do you think about C-M-f, C-M-b, C-M-n, C-M-p as alternative
> > bindings? These seem to make *a lot* of sense, because, as many here
> > have pointed out, they are so much better repeatable (Keep C-M- down,
> > press the cha
Remember to cover the basics, that is, what you expected to happen and
what in fact did happen. You don't know how to make a good report? See
http://orgmode.org/manual/Feedback.html#Feedback
Your bug report will be posted to the Org-mode mailing list.
-
On 2010-05-09 16:59 +0100, Nick Dokos wrote:
> I disagree: they are not parenthesis movement bindings - they are
> structure-navigation bindings. For example, C-M-f is forward-sexp.
> In lisp, an sexp has some relationship to parentheses, but it is
> incidental; in other programming modes, an sexp
Daniel Martins writes:
> In short
>
> What I have to do (minimal code in .emacs and .org) to display an image?
Update to current Org-Mode and from the on press
C-c C-x C-v
> This image will be maintained when I export the file?
Yes.
> iimage could be included in org distribution?
Not n
Carsten Dominik writes:
> Isn't this a legitimate case for overwriting these? The outline structure is
> a
> hierarchical structure which can be traversed in a similar way as the
> parenthesis structure in Lisp code Emacs major mode conventions allow
> overwriting general commands when th
Leo writes:
> Perhaps you haven't noticed. SEXP is a useful abstract. For example, it
> allows you to move across some_long_function_name in C and even in the
> message-mode I'm currently using, not just parenthesis. Situation like
> this will arise when editing org files too. It is a key binding
On 2010-05-09 16:24 +0100, Carsten Dominik wrote:
> Isn't this a legitimate case for overwriting these? The outline
> structure is a hierarchical structure which can be traversed in a
> similar way as the parenthesis structure in Lisp code Emacs major
> mode conventions allow overwriting genera
On 2010-05-09 18:33 +0100, Sebastian Rose wrote:
> Perhaps you haven't noticed, that C-M-a and C-M-e do not anything
> usefull or similar to what you describe in Org-mode buffers.
>
> Navigating sections would be something similar and useful. Wouldn't it?
I already stated it makes sense to re-
Leo writes:
> On 2010-05-09 16:59 +0100, Nick Dokos wrote:
>> I disagree: they are not parenthesis movement bindings - they are
>> structure-navigation bindings. For example, C-M-f is forward-sexp.
>> In lisp, an sexp has some relationship to parentheses, but it is
>> incidental; in other program
Nick Dokos writes:
> Leo wrote:
>
>> On 2010-05-09 12:43 +0100, Carsten Dominik wrote:
>> > what do you think about C-M-f, C-M-b, C-M-n, C-M-p as alternative
>> > bindings? These seem to make *a lot* of sense, because, as many here
>> > have pointed out, they are so much better repeatable (Keep
Nick Dokos writes:
> Leo wrote:
>
>> On 2010-05-09 12:43 +0100, Carsten Dominik wrote:
>> > what do you think about C-M-f, C-M-b, C-M-n, C-M-p as alternative
>> > bindings? These seem to make *a lot* of sense, because, as many here
>> > have pointed out, they are so much better repeatable (Keep
On 05/09/2010 07:43 AM, Carsten Dominik wrote:
On May 9, 2010, at 12:03 AM, Scott Randby wrote:
On 05/08/2010 04:22 PM, Friedrich Delgado Friedrichs wrote:
Hi!
Carsten Dominik schrieb:
I am wondering:
How many of your are using these keys
C-c C-f
C-c C-b
C-c C-n
C-c C-p
Never. I always u
Hi,
the docstring of org-export-as-latex contains incorrectly escaped \
characters resulting in two passages being rendered like
^Hegin{document}...^Hnd{document}.
The attached patch should fix the problem (The patch is against the
org-mode version included in GNU Emacs).
Emacs : GNU Emacs 24.0
On May 9, 2010, at 9:00 PM, Dan Davison wrote:
Nick Dokos writes:
Leo wrote:
On 2010-05-09 12:43 +0100, Carsten Dominik wrote:
what do you think about C-M-f, C-M-b, C-M-n, C-M-p as alternative
bindings? These seem to make *a lot* of sense, because, as many
here
have pointed out, they a
21 matches
Mail list logo
