Re: Keybinding nit

["Jan D." <jan.h.d@swipnet.se>]

David Kastrup skrev:
> Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org> writes:
> 
>>     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?
> 

I think changing C-x 4 0 to just kill the window and adding C-x 4 k to kill
buffer and window makes sense.

But I have a question for C-x 5 k.  If you have more than one window showing
different buffers in the frame, shall it kill all the buffers, or prompt for
the one to kill?  I'd assume the latter.  The prompt could be skipped if there
is just one buffer shown in that frame.

	Jan D.