Skip to content

? mapping conflicts with backward search default vim's keymapping #106

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Closed
petRUShka opened this issue Oct 19, 2021 · 2 comments
Closed

? mapping conflicts with backward search default vim's keymapping #106

petRUShka opened this issue Oct 19, 2021 · 2 comments
Labels
bug Something isn't working

Comments

@petRUShka
Copy link

Are you using "tree-sitter" branch?

Yes

Describe the bug

? mapping opens orgmode.nvim's help instead of starting backward search which is default vim's keymapping.

Steps to reproduce

Press ? in .org file.

Expected behavior

starting standard backward search

Emacs functionality

No response

Screenshots and recordings

No response

OS / Distro

ArchLinux

Neovim version/commit

v0.6.0-dev+462-g5fd455757

Additional context

No response

@petRUShka petRUShka added the bug Something isn't working label Oct 19, 2021
@kristijanhusak
Copy link
Member

It can be changed, but I agree it's not a good default. I'm always using / with n/N, that's why it's not an issue for me. I guess I'll change it to g? since some of the other plugins are using the same.

kristijanhusak added a commit that referenced this issue Oct 24, 2021
kristijanhusak added a commit that referenced this issue Oct 24, 2021
@kristijanhusak
Copy link
Member

I changed it to use g? as described above. Let me know if you have any issues.

gzagatti pushed a commit to gzagatti/orgmode that referenced this issue Oct 19, 2022
SlayerOfTheBad pushed a commit to SlayerOfTheBad/orgmode that referenced this issue Aug 16, 2024
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
bug Something isn't working
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants