Default shortcuts

[shazow]

I noticed that the default shortcuts for PIDA changed from ctrl+key to shift+ctrl+key. Some of the most commonly used shortcuts are among those affected, and I want to argue that this is an injustice! :-)

One of my most used shortcuts is ctrl+w for closing the current buffer, and shift+ctrl+w is murderously unergonomic. It would be nice if some of the really common shortcuts were standard (like ctrl+w for closing the current buffer, equivalent to closing a tab in every other app). This will make new users feel more at home (without having to dig into edit shortcuts menu).

Some other candidates for simplification:

• Vim > Save (ctrl+s), undo (ctrl+z), redo (ctrl+r)

[ali]

Could we get this in for 0.6

[shazow]

Lately I've been using CTRL+W for close buffer, and CTRL+SHIFT+W for close all buffers, feels really natural to me.

[guyzmo]

that's true that shift+control is not ergonomic, but I'm against "^{W" for close buffers for at least two reasons :}

1/ if you're using splitwindows in vim, ^WW is used to switched between windows 2/ ^{W is the standard for "cut-previous-word" in emacs mode (which I emulate in vim's insert mode)}

so ^{W would be incompatible with 2 of the most used editors... So we may better use the super key, or only alt-keys to avoid conflicts between editor, window-manager and the application itself.}

[guyzmo]

damn wiki formatting

that's true that shift+control is not ergonomic, but I'm against "C-W" for close buffers for at least two reasons :

1/ if you're using splitwindows in vim, C-W C-W is used to switched between windows 2/ C-W is the standard for "cut-previous-word" in emacs mode (which I emulate in vim's insert mode)

so C-W would be incompatible with 2 of the most used editors... So we may better use the super key, or only alt-keys to avoid conflicts between editor, window-manager and the application itself.

[shazow]

Sounds like a reasonable argument to me.

Hypothetically, could set the default shortcuts based on the editor you choose, but that's inconsistent and probably not worth it.

[guyzmo]

well, imho pida is, and has to stay editor-centered, as we're using the most powerful editors around (except for medit, but it's up to us to make it how we want it).

Then I think instead of adding our own shortcuts, or doing a new shortcut management view, we should better think to integrate them all to the editor's "philosophy". Like for vim taking a prefix for all pida commands (e.g.: ',p...' for maps and ':pida...' for full commands) and have a :he pida that lists all pida commands.

For emacs, we can have a 'M-x pida' for full commands, and a 'C-x C-...' that sends commands to pida.

And for medit, then, it'd be smart to have standard shortcuts, 'C-w', 'C-z'/'C-r', 'C-s', 'C-...'.

So it maybe smart to give an easy way for the user to choose the prefixes he wants (',p' or ';p' or even '`p' for vim, and 'C-x C-p' or 'C-x C-P'...) for emacs/vim.