From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Eli Zaretskii Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: "C-x 5 5" vs "C-x 4 1" inconsistency Date: Mon, 11 Oct 2021 15:11:38 +0300 Message-ID: <83ee8rrcat.fsf@gnu.org> References: <83zgriwnv2.fsf@gnu.org> <83wnmmwnn3.fsf@gnu.org> <8735p9jo51.fsf@mail.linkov.net> <83bl3xrwl0.fsf@gnu.org> <871r4sby3h.fsf@mail.linkov.net> <83r1csrbxn.fsf@gnu.org> <83k0ikqp1x.fsf@gnu.org> <87sfx83ydy.fsf@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="7353"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org, juri@linkov.net To: =?iso-8859-1?Q?K=E9vin?= Le Gouguec Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Mon Oct 11 14:13:02 2021 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([209.51.188.17]) by ciao.gmane.io with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1mZuAu-0001da-Vg for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Mon, 11 Oct 2021 14:13:00 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:44774 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1mZuAt-0001oS-S4 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Mon, 11 Oct 2021 08:12:59 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:39778) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1mZu9n-0000L1-UC for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 11 Oct 2021 08:11:52 -0400 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]:51514) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1mZu9l-0008MT-GP; Mon, 11 Oct 2021 08:11:49 -0400 Original-Received: from [87.69.77.57] (port=2351 helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1mZu9l-0000uk-2Y; Mon, 11 Oct 2021 08:11:49 -0400 In-Reply-To: <87sfx83ydy.fsf@gmail.com> (message from =?iso-8859-1?Q?K=E9v?= =?iso-8859-1?Q?in?= Le Gouguec on Mon, 11 Oct 2021 07:48:25 +0200) X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: "Emacs-devel" Xref: news.gmane.io gmane.emacs.devel:276736 Archived-At: > From: Kévin Le Gouguec > Cc: juri@linkov.net, emacs-devel@gnu.org > Date: Mon, 11 Oct 2021 07:48:25 +0200 > > > 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. That's a peculiar argument. There's only one "C-x K K" combination for any K, and yet we have more than a dozen commands starting with "C-x 4" and similarly for "C-x 5". Does it mean that all but one of them is not ergonomic?