Home
| Calendar
| Mail Lists
| List Archives
| Desktop SIG
| Hardware Hacking SIG
Wiki | Flickr | PicasaWeb | Video | Maps & Directions | Installfests | Keysignings Linux Cafe | Meeting Notes | Linux Links | Bling | About BLU |
On Mon, Oct 13, 2003 at 08:09:05AM -0400, Jerry Feldman wrote: > I think that Bill had his sequence wrong. This may well be true; however regardless of what the actual key binding is, I have also had this problem with Xemacs on Red Hat systems. I don't remember what key sequence it was bound to by default, and I don't have time right now to investigate, so I'll assume you are correct. I also haven't used (x)emacs in months, having found that vim does everything that I wanted Xemacs to do for me with a lot less fuss and much quicker load times. But I do remember that Xemacs will tell you what key sequence a function is bound to, and that no combination of the named keys would activate that function... I was only ever able to activate the function using the M-x trick. -- Derek D. Martin http://www.pizzashack.org/ GPG Key ID: 0xDFBEAD02 -=-=-=-=- This message is posted from an invalid address. Replying to it will result in undeliverable mail. Sorry for the inconvenience. Thank the spammers. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: not available URL: <http://lists.blu.org/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20031013/14c45494/attachment.sig>
BLU is a member of BostonUserGroups | |
We also thank MIT for the use of their facilities. |