From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: David Kastrup Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Keybinding nit Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2006 15:07:46 +0200 Message-ID: <85irig78t9.fsf@lola.goethe.zz> References: <85d58p7hyu.fsf@lola.goethe.zz> NNTP-Posting-Host: main.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1161287805 5195 80.91.229.2 (19 Oct 2006 19:56:45 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2006 19:56:45 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Thu Oct 19 21:56:45 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 1Gae0M-00074S-VS for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 19 Oct 2006 21:56:39 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Gae0M-0003cL-LY for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 19 Oct 2006 15:56:38 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1GadyK-0001mT-IO for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 19 Oct 2006 15:54:33 -0400 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1GadyG-0001dG-7h for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 19 Oct 2006 15:54:28 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GadyE-0001cB-PP for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 19 Oct 2006 15:54:26 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.164] (helo=fencepost.gnu.org) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.52) id 1GadyD-0007Vr-MY for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 19 Oct 2006 15:54:25 -0400 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lola.goethe.zz) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1Gadt1-0006oC-OR; Thu, 19 Oct 2006 15:49:03 -0400 Original-Received: by lola.goethe.zz (Postfix, from userid 1002) id 48B9C1C4F93E; Thu, 19 Oct 2006 15:07:46 +0200 (CEST) Original-To: rms@gnu.org In-Reply-To: (Richard Stallman's message of "Thu\, 19 Oct 2006 08\:56\:57 -0400") User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.0.50 (gnu/linux) 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:60927 Archived-At: Richard Stallman 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? -- David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum