Re: Keybinding nit

[David Kastrup <dak@gnu.org>]

Nick Roberts <nickrob@snap.net.nz> 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?
>
> If you mean move C-x 4 0 to C-x 5 k, I agree.  (I'm not sure what you want
> C-x 4 k to do).

Serves me right.  If it weren't for disagreement, I'd have no
agreement at all.  I'd have proposed to move C-x 4 0
(`kill-buffer-and-window') to C-x 4 k and have C-x 5 k be mapped to
`kill-buffer-and-frame' (which does not yet exist).

-- 
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum