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: Adding missing C-x 5 C-j and C-x t C-j commands Date: Mon, 23 May 2022 17:07:37 +0300 Message-ID: <83v8tw5oly.fsf@gnu.org> References: <87a6b9xs22.fsf@athena.silentflame.com> <83fsl16l5l.fsf@gnu.org> <871qwkyhfx.fsf@athena.silentflame.com> <87y1ysx2sj.fsf@athena.silentflame.com> <86h75g1xuc.fsf@mail.linkov.net> <791EABD2-57A9-4C71-9BB3-88F691CE13DF@gnu.org> <87o7zowe0j.fsf@athena.silentflame.com> Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="39884"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org, juri@linkov.net To: Sean Whitton Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Mon May 23 16:08:44 2022 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 1nt8jj-000ADI-4g for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Mon, 23 May 2022 16:08:43 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:43296 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1nt8jh-000052-P4 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Mon, 23 May 2022 10:08:41 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:40218) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1nt8iu-0007qP-7J for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 23 May 2022 10:07:52 -0400 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]:34708) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1nt8it-0006hk-RE; Mon, 23 May 2022 10:07:51 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gnu.org; s=fencepost-gnu-org; h=References:Subject:In-Reply-To:To:From:Date: mime-version; bh=qy+IK7UEzltrQ8l9ox1nXSvH5lYzo95+/SYY28ROAS0=; b=IBjSOeK7KH4o TG4aLNQWMdd5JEKFPtGpTRt0atFar6M+RNjAgJgmYiCWJl4gn8bGdDqhyKL/qiG0gDj2qtVizRuUk 86PdUHnZRnhbCPLovFqtdyWGhK08H0Ou1fH3JOALKnzVO5KxGaWeq4xoRrkLWflyo4W8Hl5zjHvXr fFcNmVd8tDqL0sebC6eGsybogMQS5YidL9QI2dO82CkrS2xec1172wsjnTgNlpAVVQunWxeuRMiQz X0NHO8B9m6O5PAwYGAIaEdRdG+PLGAe02GtTSVvMHciBSNTHwNL/8w87Nu+f4xwt5z6dSdyWzg9bq mUJg77GieTezl18g11ncTw==; Original-Received: from [87.69.77.57] (port=3159 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 1nt8it-0000EJ-AM; Mon, 23 May 2022 10:07:51 -0400 In-Reply-To: <87o7zowe0j.fsf@athena.silentflame.com> (message from Sean Whitton on Mon, 23 May 2022 06:54:20 -0700) X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 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:290160 Archived-At: > From: Sean Whitton > Date: Mon, 23 May 2022 06:54:20 -0700 > > I certainly agree with you that we shouldn't bind things into C-x 5 > willy-nilly. In this case, however, it's not just because we can, but > because it makes things consistent with C-x 4 in a way that's helpful. My point is that it may be useful for you, but is not necessarily useful enough for others to justify a global "C-x 5" binding. > As Juri has determined, it's almost the only one that doesn't match > right now. "C-x 4 a" is also unpaired, as are "C-x 5 u", "C-x 5 2", and "C-x 5 o". That's hardly "almost". > Here's a different way to look at it. Given the existing symmetry > between C-x 4 and C-x 5, if we later bind anything *other* than > dired-jump-other-window to C-x 5 C-j, we would be introducing a special > exception that users would have to remember. That is, the existing > symmetry has already implicitly semi-reserved C-x 5 C-j for > dired-jump-other-window, by giving us a strong reason not to put > anything else there. See above: we already have asymmetry.