Re: Adding missing C-x 5 C-j and C-x t C-j commands

[Sean Whitton <spwhitton@spwhitton.name>]

Hello,

On Mon 23 May 2022 at 05:24am +03, Eli Zaretskii wrote:

>> From: Sean Whitton <spwhitton@spwhitton.name>
>> Date: Sun, 22 May 2022 12:53:25 -0700
>>
>> We have C-x d, C-x 4 d, C-x 5 d and C-x t d, but only C-x C-j
>> and C-x 4 C-j.  My fingers try to use C-x 5 C-j, and find it isn't
>> there, at least biweekly.  Here is a draft patch to fill the gap.
>
> We have the "C-x 5 5" prefix for purposes like this one.

It's a great fallback, but in this case I don't think one should have to
use it.  For everything else under C-x 4 for which -other-frame and
-other-tab variants make sense, we also have bindings under C-x 5 and
C-x t.  If we miss some of them out because we've since added C-x 5 5,
we are asking the user to keep track of which things under C-x 4 have
bindings under C-x 5 and which don't -- one has to remember that C-x 4
C-j exists but C-x 5 C-j doesn't.  I'd prefer that we don't impose that
cognitive burden on users just because we now have C-x 5 5.

-- 
Sean Whitton