[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Keybinding nit
From: |
Nick Roberts |
Subject: |
Re: Keybinding nit |
Date: |
Fri, 20 Oct 2006 09:06:41 +1300 |
> > C-x 4 0 and C-x 5 0 are not at all symmetric, and C-x 4 0 is not
> > really intuitive.
> >
> > Maybe one should rather have C-x 4 k and C-x 5 k for killing both
> > buffer and window/frame?
> >
> > Since C-x k reads a buffer name, I would expect C-x 4 k to
> > read a buffer name also.
>
> Well, I wouldn't (there are quite a few keybindings where "k" just
> kills something). And since neither C-x 0 nor C-x 5 0 kills a buffer,
> I would not expect C-x 4 0 to do it, either.
>
> It all boils down to what feels more natural and expected. Of course
> that is a matter of personal taste, and I like to think my taste is
> not too far out here. Other opinions?
If you mean move C-x 4 0 to C-x 5 k, I agree. (I'm not sure what you want
C-x 4 k to do).
--
Nick http://www.inet.net.nz/~nickrob
- Keybinding nit, David Kastrup, 2006/10/18
- Re: Keybinding nit, Peter Lee, 2006/10/18
- Re: Keybinding nit, Miles Bader, 2006/10/18
- Re: Keybinding nit, Kevin Rodgers, 2006/10/19
- Re: Keybinding nit, Miles Bader, 2006/10/22
- Re: Keybinding nit, Kevin Rodgers, 2006/10/24
- Re: Keybinding nit, Miles Bader, 2006/10/24
- Re: Keybinding nit, Kevin Rodgers, 2006/10/25
Re: Keybinding nit, Richard Stallman, 2006/10/19
Re: Keybinding nit, Jan D., 2006/10/20
Re: Keybinding nit, David Kastrup, 2006/10/20
RE: Keybinding nit, Drew Adams, 2006/10/20