[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: "C-x 5 5" vs "C-x 4 1" inconsistency

From: Kévin Le Gouguec
Subject: Re: "C-x 5 5" vs "C-x 4 1" inconsistency
Date: Mon, 11 Oct 2021 07:48:25 +0200
User-agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/29.0.50 (gnu/linux)

Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> writes:

>> Date: Sun, 10 Oct 2021 21:07:16 +0300
>> From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>
>> Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org
>> If you don't want to use 4 or 5 for both, let's find a different
>> letter, but make it identical for both "C-x 4" and "C-x 5".
> How about "C-x 4 x" and "C-x 5 x". where "x" stands for "eXecute"?
> An alternative could be "C-x 4 RET" and "C-x 5 RET".
> Would any of these be acceptable?

I don't mind x or RET in terms of mnemonics, but my clumsy fingers find
them less ergonomic than C-x K K.

FWIW, I don't find it shocking that other-{frame,tab,window}-prefix do
not end with identical letters.  True, they are the only commands in the
{ctl-x-4,ctl-x-5,tab-prefix}-map keymaps that break this convention, but
they still follow a consistent pattern: C-x K K, where K is the prefix
key for the relevant UI element.

I also support Juri's suggestion to bind tear-off-window to C-x 4 5: I
feel like the "_4_ to _5_" sequence translates quite well to "move this
_window_ to another _frame_", at least in my head.

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]