Add Colemak layout to keyboard-layout layer

[lyallcooper]

The Colemak keyboard layout is the third most popular English language keyboard layout (behind QWERTY and Dvorak), and also my keyboard layout of choice. So, I thought it'd be worth adding to the new keyboard-layout layer for myself and anyone else that might find it useful.

Overall, this is a pretty basic change that just adds the hjkl ↔ hnei mapping, specifies the home row keys and updates the README with a description of the layout.

[ajgrf]

I'm glad I found this PR because I was about to start working on Colemak support myself. So thank you for getting it started! However, I think these are slightly better Colemak rebindings. So the rebinding table would look like this:

(colemak . (("n" . "j")
            ("e" . "k")
            ("i" . "l")
            ("k" . "n")
            ("u" . "i")
            ("l" . "u")
            ("j" . "e"))))

They are still pretty minimal changes but it puts I, U, and N back into their QWERTY positions. With your bindings I would probably forever confuse I and U in both QWERTY and Colemak layouts!

What do you think? I know that there are a lot of Colemak users out there who have come up with their own incompatible vim bindings, so I hope this isn't too contentious.

[lyallcooper]

That's an interesting remapping. Though I'd be hesitant to make it the default colemak mapping simply because I don't think it would be what people would expect. One solution could be to add a colemak-alt map, or perhaps let the user specify their own map.

I'll have a look to see if there's a nice way of doing it when I've got a little bit of time.

[ajgrf]

I realized I may have over-emphasized swapping the insert/undo commands, but even if you don't do that I think putting the N bindings back into their QWERTY spot is still worthwhile. So it would look like this:

(colemak . (("n" . "j")
            ("e" . "k")
            ("i" . "l")
            ("k" . "n")
            ("l" . "i")
            ("j" . "e"))))

[TheBB]

What's the relationship between this and #7178?

[allentiak]

#7178 has the same objective. Whereas #6631 contains the related discussion (!).
What about merging all these three issues?
I would say #7178 seems to be the best candidate, as it seems to be the most complete PR.

[wbolster]

@ajgrf i agree with your preferred colemak remappings. my evil-colemak-basics package is an extended implementation of this idea.

[syl20bnr]

Thank you !
There are multiple PR for colemak, see 4461721e
Cherry-picked into develop branch, you can safely delete your branch.