Re: Keybinding nit

[David Kastrup <dak@gnu.org>]

"Jan D." <jan.h.d@swipnet.se> writes:

> 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.

Good catch.  I'd just kill the selected window of the frame.

-- 
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum