RE: [PATCH] Make `C-x {' and `C-x }' repeatable

[Drew Adams]

> > There is also the question (assuming a fix that would apply the prefix
> > arg from the prefix key to each repeated final key) of whether using a
> > prefix arg before an individual final key should affect only that key
> > occurrence or all subsequent key hits as well.
> 
> I haven't tried this yet, but I imagine that I would want subsequent
> commands to *ignore* the prefix. For example, I would grow a window
> by 4 or 16, then use single keystrokes to fit more accurately from
> there. I do something similar to this now with a simple macro
> (long-since built into my fingers) that grows a window by 12.

Good point.  That is indeed another use case.

> Have you perhaps tried this behavior with window-sizing commands?
> Did it feel more natural to always adjust the window by a large
> increment, or did you find that you typically adjusted it by a small
> increment and repeated the growth multiple times?

I would probably prefer that the prefix arg be applied modally here.
IOW, the last prefix arg be used for subsequent repetitions until I change it.
That way, when and whether to change to a more or less fine-grained increment
is up to me, not to some hard-coded rule.

E.g., what you suggest is to always immediately revert to no prefix arg, which
means an increment of one, after the first use of the sizing key.  I would
prefer to keep the increment as I requested it, until I change it:

C-5 C-x a a a a C-2 a a a
                ^^^ Change to more fine-grained control here, not before.

Moving a frame around is probably a better example, since window resizing by
increments of a line or char at a time rarely needs repetitions with large
increments.

Or think of window resizing by pixel increments instead of line/column 
increments.
You might well want to start with a large increment and switch to a smaller one
when you got closer to what you wanted.  But the point is that where/when you
switch is based on what you see currently, not just automatically after the 
first
key hit.  There is nothing to guarantee that your first try gets you close 
enough
to the point where you want to switch.

IOW, I would give users the control interactively, not leave it up to some hard
rule.  And I would let the increment be modal, so users need to do less
specifying of the increment to use.  They should, IOW, need to specify only
*changes* in the increment.