(Amin: ... for the list of questions in whatever
order you like.)
Okay, so I see what package is used,
probably symex-mode...
Right. So the main package that was
being demoed,
that is not yet on MELPA. In fact, I
haven't even decided on a name for it.
I've alternately called
it epistemic-mode, I've called it
england, I called it
all kinds of things, but at the moment
you can find it on my Github. There's a link
in the presentation itself, if you go to
https://github.com/countvajhula, you'll see
the package there. It's currently
named Indra, but
I'm not sure. (Organizer: Package is called rigpa.)
Actually, yes, the second one is
correct. That was the name that I selected
last night. That's because it...
There's a concept in Tibetan Buddhism
that seems like it might have something
to do with
the kinds of concepts we're talking
about with this package, so I just
thought it would be a good name for it.
You can look up that concept
and get a sense of it on Wikipedia.
Next question is "how to deal with Dvorak
or however that's pronounced.
This has always bugged me.
Is there an Xmodmap mode?" So the thing
with this is it's kind of surprising, but
although Vim
was originally developed
with the idea of
the key bindings being on the home row,
it turns out that that is actually not a
major aspect
of the Vim editing experience, so
people who use the Dvorak layout
actually end up using the same keys as
they do on the normal QWERTY layout, so
they don't remap anything,
because
the power that Vim--or the
flexibility, the
spiral that Vim enables on QWERTY-layout
keyboards is exactly
preserved, even on a Dvorak keyboard,
even though your
fingers are not in the same positions.
It's not a big deal, actually.
"I mostly use default model
provided by vanilla Emacs and work and
Org Mode for text editing. Can you give
me some examples
of how the user can use the concept of
"mode of mode"
to do some interesting editing?
Probably the main thing would be
the keystrokes would be less
contrived.
The fewer modes you have,
the more modifiers you need
in order to do whatever it is that
you're trying to do, because you've got,
essentially, with the Emacs model, you've got
a completely flat
keyboard structure. So all of the
different things that you might
want to express are all mapped to a flat
keyboard, a set of keys.
With this kind of
modal structure, the more modes you have,
the more the individual keystrokes
become
shorter and shorter. That could be one
benefit that would be provided.
With many modes, your keystrokes would
generally
be a single keystroke long for even
relatively complex tasks,
because you're setting the context
beforehand.
So you already say, "Oh, I'm going to be
talking about this Org buffer
agenda," and then
all the keystrokes that you do at
that point would be in relation to that.
(Amin: I think we have time for like
one more short question.)
One more short question... Okay, let's see.
"How do new modes come into existence?" You
can make them yourself,
and you can specify them in Emacs
Lisp
if you like, but there's also a simple way.
You can also do it visually as we did.
But yeah, defining them
is essentially built on top of Hydra, but
it could also be built on top of Evil or
any other modal interface provider.
There's an abstraction layer.
(Amin: Okay. Thank you so much for your talk and
for the live Q&A.)
Sure, thank you. (Amin: Feel free to take
up the rest of the questions either via
IRC or
on the pad on on your own time off the
stream.)
Perfect. Yeah, I'll go ahead and put in
some answers there.
(Amin: Awesome, thank you.) All right, thank you.
Have a good one.
(Amin: Thanks you too)