>Why not use the F[2..10] keys? (F6 must be redefined then)
We have 19 functions to administer and map to keys, so 8 would not suffice. More to that, function keys should be reserved for META kind of stuff like saving, loading, options etc., IMHO. For your other arguments, please read our above discussion.
Ok, I wasn't aware the f also means something in the running game. So since I don't like , . for several reasons, we are left with the following alternatives:
q-w, d-g, j-k, k-l
I favour q-w, second d-g. Are we through with lettering then? :)
Side Notes: You see that only discussing behaviour of systemats renders loads of problems which were not aware before. Second, for program translations probably key-to-function maps are required to be created in-program. Don't know if such exist already.
>Why not use the F[2..10] keys? (F6 must be redefined then)
We have 19 functions to administer and map to keys, so 8 would not suffice. More to that, function keys should be reserved for META kind of stuff like saving, loading, options etc., IMHO. For your other arguments, please read our above discussion.
Ok, I wasn't aware the f also means something in the running game. So since I don't like , . for several reasons, we are left with the following alternatives:
q-w, d-g, j-k, k-l
I favour q-w, second d-g. Are we through with lettering then? :)
Side Notes: You see that only discussing behaviour of systemats renders loads of problems which were not aware before. Second, for program translations probably key-to-function maps are required to be created in-program. Don't know if such exist already.