From: mcmahan@cs.unca.edu (Scott McMahan -- Genesis mailing list owner)
Newsgroups: comp.editors
Subject: Re: Editor Keys
Date: 11 Apr 92 17:50:22 GMT
Organization: University of North Carolina at Asheville

petcher@ds10.scri.fsu.edu (Don Petcher) writes:

: I do agree with this, but in adopting precisely this philosophy in the
: port of an editor from the Atari ST world (in that environment it makes
: use of ctrl, alt, function keys in an efficient intuitive way) to Unix,
: I am struggling with exactly how one should implement the philosophy. 
: Alt, function and many control keys are of course not available.

Which editor is this? I'm interested in it already...

: 5. The command line 'edit language' should be efficient ('Unixy' - NOT like
:    TPU), so that many commands will be just as quick through the command line
:    (e.g. <esc> p <return> for paste command - i.e. only 3 keystrokes).

The only thing TPU, and VMS in general, needs is filename and command 
completion. TPU's command language is very easy to use, and very 
intuitive to me. I think Emacs could be a lot better. 

You have command recall, something that is painful in Emacs -- to recall
M-x comamnds, you have to open windows and do all these things that make
it more trouble than it's worth. The up arrow is all you need in EVE.

Also, you only have to type in a much as is significant (sav f works
for save file) and the complete words are there if you need them.
EVE is very well integrated to VMS, the way Emacs is to UNIX.

It's the minor inconsistencies that give me the most trouble. For example,
in EVE (any any sensible editor), you "save file" -- but in Emacs, 
you "save-buffer"! 
 
: The problems are many of course, as everyone who has thought about this
: will realize, but I want to decide on a reasonable layout from the
: outset, since as has been emphasized here, even though one can redefine
: the key layout (yes, it is allowed by the editor), most people don't. So
: questions:
: 
: - Where does one find a list of available keys within some accaptable
: standard? For example, on some keyboards the ctrl key works with punctuation
: (e.g. ctrl-? is meaningful) whereas on others it is no different from ?. Is
: there an ANSI standard set of keys one should limit oneself to? Here I would
: assume to include cursor keys in the standard and not use the 'most valued'
: (i.e. some control keys) keys to reproduce thier effect. If one has to work
: on a terminal without cursor keys regularly in this day and age, I think it
: reasonable to assume that to be the exception. Then one would just have to 
: redefine keys as one likes.

Emacs' keys are pretty standard in UNIX. Look at the bindings for tcsh for
example. vi's movement (hjkl) are also standard for applications that 
don't need typing keys (games, for example).

I would put movement keys and really common ones like beginnign & end of
line on Emacs bindings. 

One thing I do is use the command line a *lot*. All the terminals I use 
are different. All the editors have subtle key differences (ever do 
^Y to yank in EVE? :^)) that can screw you. So -- to be safe, just
use the command line. 

: - With regard to 2 above, what keys should be avoided? ctrl-S, ctrl-Q
: for example? Apparently some systems intercept these, although I have
: not worked on any that do. 

I've unbound ^S ^Q in just about everything. Telnetting to places from a
VAX is a pain, and some terminals (like VT320's) are impossible to deal
with. It's easier to just not use the than to figure out every terminal!

: Ctrl-Z should certainly have its usual
: meaning under Unix. What others?

^Y should be avoided -- in VMS... ^C should be too... since it's the panic
key. I would not worry about shell bindings though (except for VMS where
you *can't* do anything about ^Y as KILL THIS NOW). I unbound ^Z in 
Emacs almost immediately -- after suspending the stupid thing every 
time I wanted to do Page-Up (since that's MicroEMACS' command).

: - Are there 'must have' conventions to adopt for some control keys? For
: example, I have seen people here advocating ctrl-X,C,V as cut copy paste
: (why?), 

Because a *huge* amount of applications use those keys. Most all Mac 
stuff does (like MS Word), and the Laser C shell in the Atari... it's
very common. 

: although I would think that perhaps one better make these three
: actions a little harder to perform in favor of some more basic editing
: functions. 

I've always considered those three to be pretty basic & essential...

: Any other comments would be appreciated. However, a word of caution is
: perhaps advised. Those who don't agree with my philosophy, or just like the
: way vi or emacs does it and don't see why I should bother with another editor
: (it DOES have its own unique features not mentioned in this post ... :-),
: could easily start more editor wars. I am really only looking for practical
: help with a practical problem and would not like to see more wars. I
: think there is plenty of room in the Unix world for a TPU like (command line
: driven) editor for 'the rest of us'.

I really want to see this editor, for the Atari and for UNIX! :) 

I think:

* People should re-bind the keys any way they like. Or live with the 
default. One reason I have never used Joe's Editor is the key bindings
are so weird. If I had to use it (and with Emacs & vi there's no
reason to), I'd bind it to Emacs-like keys.

* provisions for key strings (like ^[[123~!-+ etc...) instead of 
single or double keys is a must. 

* I'd really like to aee a TPU-ish editor in UNIX... 

Scott