You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
You have not yet mapped digits for programer-dvorak layout. In programer-dvorak, digit keys are shifted, and it looks like you avoid mapping shifted keys overall. This could be used to an advantage:
would turn digits into prefix argument triggers, much like in Vim, if I understand Vim setup correctly. However, negative arguments won't be supported this way. There is a way to handle negative arguments (see below) but it's a little hackish, so I'm not sure it won't break things established in your package, or in Emacs, or even if it could be considered an outright bad Emacs style. But you could add this straightforward positive digit argument support for programer-dvorak right away. I think it would be a good decision.
I don't see what could go wrong here, and have enabled this for myself. This way, negative arguments are supported, and plain universal-argument flag is supported as well. So it looks very nice at first glance. But I rarely (never?) use universal arguments anyway, and thus I don't think any test reports on this would come from me in near future.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
If it turns out the hack is OK, and thus one can safely remap C-u, which resides at quite sweet a spot in dvorak and dvp (and even in qwerty), I'd say this leads to a really significant advantage for dvp users.
You have not yet mapped digits for programer-dvorak layout. In programer-dvorak, digit keys are shifted, and it looks like you avoid mapping shifted keys overall. This could be used to an advantage:
would turn digits into prefix argument triggers, much like in Vim, if I understand Vim setup correctly. However, negative arguments won't be supported this way. There is a way to handle negative arguments (see below) but it's a little hackish, so I'm not sure it won't break things established in your package, or in Emacs, or even if it could be considered an outright bad Emacs style. But you could add this straightforward positive digit argument support for programer-dvorak right away. I think it would be a good decision.
Now, to the hack:
I don't see what could go wrong here, and have enabled this for myself. This way, negative arguments are supported, and plain
universal-argument
flag is supported as well. So it looks very nice at first glance. But I rarely (never?) use universal arguments anyway, and thus I don't think any test reports on this would come from me in near future.The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: