RE: C-x C-f RET change

[Drew Adams]

    > `C-x 2' says to split _this_ window in two; it doesn't say to 
    > do anything
    > about another window, according to the conventional 
    > interpretation. It could
    > alternatively be thought of, however, as 
    > `make-another-window' instead of
    > `split-window', in which case it would make sense as `C-x 4 2'.
    >
    > So, it might be worth creating a separate `make-another-window' (or
    > `make-window-command', in analogy to `make-frame-command'), 
    > bound to `C-x 4
    > 2'. With pop-up-frames = nil, this would do the same thing as
    > `split-window'. With pop-up-frames = t, this would do the 
    > same thing as
    > `make-frame-command'. That would keep the conventions and terminology
    > consistent.
    
    Since `C-x 2' is not the exact equivalent of `C-x 4 f M-n RET'
    (the difference is where point lands after the command: in the 
    first case
    it is in the initial window, in the second case it is in a new window).
    The same difference makes sense for `C-x 2' and new 
    `make-window-command':
    `make-window-command' with pop-up-frames=nil would leave point in a new
    window, like `make-frame-command' leaves point in a new frame.
    
Yes. Good.