From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Nick Roberts Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Keybinding nit Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2006 09:06:41 +1300 Message-ID: <17719.56017.158858.353004@kahikatea.snap.net.nz> References: <85d58p7hyu.fsf@lola.goethe.zz> <85irig78t9.fsf@lola.goethe.zz> NNTP-Posting-Host: main.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1161288605 8593 80.91.229.2 (19 Oct 2006 20:10:05 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2006 20:10:05 +0000 (UTC) Cc: rms@gnu.org, emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Thu Oct 19 22:10:03 2006 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by ciao.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GaeDH-0000jI-02 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 19 Oct 2006 22:09:59 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GaeDG-0002JH-9x for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 19 Oct 2006 16:09:58 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1GaeD3-0002Iv-Iz for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 19 Oct 2006 16:09:45 -0400 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1GaeD2-0002Ij-Qs for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 19 Oct 2006 16:09:45 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GaeD2-0002Ig-OQ for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 19 Oct 2006 16:09:44 -0400 Original-Received: from [202.37.101.8] (helo=viper.snap.net.nz) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.52) id 1GaeCz-0001Tk-Pc; Thu, 19 Oct 2006 16:09:42 -0400 Original-Received: from kahikatea.snap.net.nz (p202-124-124-108.snap.net.nz [202.124.124.108]) by viper.snap.net.nz (Postfix) with ESMTP id 73DDA7BBEBF; Fri, 20 Oct 2006 09:09:40 +1300 (NZDT) Original-Received: by kahikatea.snap.net.nz (Postfix, from userid 500) id A7123BE444; Fri, 20 Oct 2006 09:06:42 +1300 (NZDT) Original-To: David Kastrup In-Reply-To: <85irig78t9.fsf@lola.goethe.zz> X-Mailer: VM 7.19 under Emacs 22.0.50.27 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:60929 Archived-At: > > 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