plugin for standard shortcuts

3 views
Skip to first unread message

const451

unread,
Jun 18, 2010, 7:53:54 PM6/18/10
to Help-gn...@gnu.org

Is there a plugin that uses standard key shortcuts for text manipulation
such as Ctrl-C, Ctrl-V, Ctrl-Z, etc.? I think they are faster to use than
the default shortcuts in emacs.

I run Ubuntu Lucid (newbie).

Thank you!
--
View this message in context: http://old.nabble.com/plugin-for-standard-shortcuts-tp28931765p28931765.html
Sent from the Emacs - Help mailing list archive at Nabble.com.


Suvayu Ali

unread,
Jun 19, 2010, 9:53:28 AM6/19/10
to help-gn...@gnu.org
On Friday 18 June 2010 04:53 PM, const451 wrote:
>
>
> Is there a plugin that uses standard key shortcuts for text manipulation
> such as Ctrl-C, Ctrl-V, Ctrl-Z, etc.? I think they are faster to use than
> the default shortcuts in emacs.
>

`M-x cua-mode'

--
Suvayu

Open source is the future. It sets us free.

Evans Winner

unread,
Jun 19, 2010, 5:06:39 PM6/19/10
to
,------ const451 wrote ------

| Is there a plugin that uses standard key shortcuts for
| text manipulation such as Ctrl-C, Ctrl-V, Ctrl-Z, etc.?
| I think they are faster to use than the default
| shortcuts in emacs.

Do you think they are faster to use than the default
bindings in Emacs, or do you mean that they are faster for
you to use at the moment because they are what you are used
to?

In any case,

M-x cua-mode RET

-- will probably do more or less what you want. CUA stands
for Common User Interface and was designed by IBM in the
1980s[1]. cua-mode changes some default Emacs bindings to
match CUA standards. CUA does not scale very well, but is
popular because it is implemented to some degree on
Microsoft operating systems and many people first learned
the idea of doing things with the keyboard in that context.
People tend to stay with what they learn first.

By the way, and just for your information, Emacs users
typically do not call Emacs Lisp packages "plugins." More
often they call them libraries or packages. If the code
implements a major or minor mode, they typically call it a
"mode." They also usually don't use the term "shortcut,"
possibly because that seems to imply some other manner of
input that is privileged over use of the keyboard. The
phrase "key binding" is more often used, because that is
what you do: you bind a function to a key or key
combination.


Footnotes:
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_Common_User_Access

Xah Lee

unread,
Jun 19, 2010, 7:00:34 PM6/19/10
to
On Jun 18, 4:53 pm, const451 <const...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Is there a plugin that uses standard key shortcuts for text manipulation
> such as Ctrl-C, Ctrl-V, Ctrl-Z, etc.? I think they are faster to use than
> the default shortcuts in emacs.
>
> I run Ubuntu Lucid (newbie).
>
> Thank you!

you can turn on cua-mode by Alt+x cua-mode.

or you can install the ErgoEmacs keybinding, then it'll also support
standard Open, Close, Save, Save As, New... about 7 of them.

http://xahlee.org/emacs/ergonomic_emacs_keybinding.html

Xah

Tim X

unread,
Jun 19, 2010, 7:34:46 PM6/19/10
to
const451 <cons...@gmail.com> writes:

> Is there a plugin that uses standard key shortcuts for text manipulation
> such as Ctrl-C, Ctrl-V, Ctrl-Z, etc.? I think they are faster to use than
> the default shortcuts in emacs.
>
> I run Ubuntu Lucid (newbie).
>
> Thank you!

There is CUA mode, which you can select from the options menu. However,
note that emacs makes far more extensive use of 'shortcuts' than any
other system I've ever used. There is a pattern to these shortcuts that
makes them a little easier to remember and using CUA mode tends to break
this pattern. It also results in some loss of functionality with some of
the more advanced features and may cause issues wiht some modes,
especially modes you add that are not part of emacs propper.

To what extent any of this impacts on you depends very much on what you
do and how you want to use emacs. I would recommend trying to stick with
the defaults initially, if for no other reason than to know what you may
be giving up by switching to CUA mode. At leat then, you will be making
an informed decision rather than one based on habit/familiarity.

regards,

Tim

--
tcross (at) rapttech dot com dot au

Xah Lee

unread,
Jun 19, 2010, 10:19:29 PM6/19/10
to
On Jun 19, 2:06 pm, Evans Winner <tho...@unm.edu> wrote:
> ,------ const451 wrote ------
> |   Is there a plugin that uses standard key shortcuts for
> |   text manipulation such as Ctrl-C, Ctrl-V, Ctrl-Z, etc.?
> |   I think they are faster to use than the default
> |   shortcuts in emacs.
>
> Do you think they are faster to use than the default
> bindings in Emacs, or do you mean that they are faster for
> you to use at the moment because they are what you are used
> to?
>
> In any case,
>
>     M-x cua-mode RET

> -- will probably do more or less what you want.  CUA stands
> for Common User Interface and was designed by IBM in the
> 1980s[1].  cua-mode changes some default Emacs bindings to
> match CUA standards.

Emacs's cua-mode, is named after the IBM's Common User Accesss
standard. However, according to Wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_Common_User_Access
the IBM CUA standard does not say cut/copy/paste are X C V keys.
Quote:

The Cut command is ⇧ Shift+Del; Copy is Ctrl+Ins; Paste is ⇧ Shift
+Ins;

The Z X C V keys for undo/cut/copy/paste is popularized by Apple
starting in mid 1980s.

As a side note, emacs's naming of cua-mode is very bad. Because:

• very few people today knows what CUA is. Among all people who makes
a living by coding, i'd say less than 0.1% knew what CUA means.

• emacs's cua-mode's behavior is not IBM's CUA standard at all. All it
does is basically just the X C V keys, and these may not even be part
of IBM's CUA.

Emacs's developers named it cua-mode probably because of a ergo/cult
problem. They needed a name for this widely needed mode, but naming it
anyhing that might relate to Microsoft Windows or Apple is a political
problem to FSF/GNU. (note: Richard Stallman HATES Microsoft and also
HATES Apple. GNU's stance against Microsoft is well known, from GNU/
Richard's writings especially in 1980s and 1990s. Throughout 1990s,
GNU boycotted Apple partly becuase Apple sued Microsoft for copying
Apple's GUI interface. This boycot was officially withdrawn in i think
early 2000s.)

The cua-mode is probably better named XCV-mode or copy-paste-key-mode,
and the menu name should be “XCV keys for Cut/Copy/Paste”. The mode
name change is probably too late, but the menu name change can still
be done. The name “XCV keys for Cut/Copy/Paste” does not relate any
commercial organization, and is easy for people to understand what it
means.

also, the cua-mode has a major problem in that it supports XCV but not
Z for undo, which is also widely asked for, and standard across
Microsoft/Mac/Linuxes today.

> CUA does not scale very well, but is
> popular because it is implemented to some degree on
> Microsoft operating systems and many people first learned
> the idea of doing things with the keyboard in that context.
> People tend to stay with what they learn first.

CUA does not scale very well? Please provide detail on this when
saying this kinda things.

> By the way, and just for your information, Emacs users
> typically do not call Emacs Lisp packages "plugins."  More
> often they call them libraries or packages.

Calling it plugin is not emacs convention but i think is very good
terminology. It is intuitive, and widely used. For example, browsers
used the term plugins since 15 years ago. Mathematica, a programing
language calls its extra packages/libraries plugins or add-ons.
Firefox also clarified a bit in their terminology of plugin vs add-on
starting about 1 or 2 years ago. e.g. plugin are those like java or
flash engine, while addon often are little user oriented utilities.

plug-in and add-on are intuitive terms that anyone can easily
understand what they mean just by the word itself. While, package,
library, module, is more oriented to software engineering in a
technical context.

> If the code
> implements a major or minor mode, they typically call it a
> "mode."  They also usually don't use the term "shortcut,"
> possibly because that seems to imply some other manner of
> input that is privileged over use of the keyboard.  The
> phrase "key binding" is more often used, because that is
> what you do: you bind a function to a key or key
> combination.

Similar to the library/package/module vs plug-in/add-on argument, same
applies here. The term “Keyboard shortcut” or “hotkey” is suitable in
the context of users using a software application, while keybinding is
suitable for programing and software engineering.

“keybinding” is in fact logically incorrect in the user context of
pressing a key. When you press a key to invoke a command, you are not
binding a key. You are using a KEY that has a keybinding.

These distinctions are important.

I'm writing this because it is common in emacs community to sting new
users about these kinda things... and i think it's very harmful to
emacs's health. It just turns away users and keep brewing the emacs
cult.

Xah
http://xahlee.org/


Xah Lee

unread,
Jun 19, 2010, 11:41:50 PM6/19/10
to
On Jun 19, 7:19 pm, Xah Lee <xah...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I'm writing this because it is common in emacs community to sting new
> users about these kinda things... and i think it's very harmful to
> emacs's health.

slightly expanded and cleaned up, at:

• Emacs cua-mode Problems
http://xahlee.org/emacs/modernization_cua-mode.html

Xah
http://xahlee.org/


Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages