From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Sean Whitton 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 13:52:01 -0700 Message-ID: <8735h0vuoe.fsf@athena.silentflame.com> 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> <83v8tw5oly.fsf@gnu.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="3451"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" User-Agent: Notmuch/0.36 Emacs/29.0.50 (x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org, juri@linkov.net To: Eli Zaretskii Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Mon May 23 23:24:50 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 1ntFXk-0000iJ-UT for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Mon, 23 May 2022 23:24:50 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:46878 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1ntFXj-0000sD-QP for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Mon, 23 May 2022 17:24:47 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:43490) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1ntF2A-0007ak-Pv for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 23 May 2022 16:52:10 -0400 Original-Received: from wout1-smtp.messagingengine.com ([64.147.123.24]:53579) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1ntF28-0005mh-WB; Mon, 23 May 2022 16:52:10 -0400 Original-Received: from compute4.internal (compute4.nyi.internal [10.202.2.44]) by mailout.west.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4DD193200201; Mon, 23 May 2022 16:52:05 -0400 (EDT) Original-Received: from mailfrontend1 ([10.202.2.162]) by compute4.internal (MEProxy); Mon, 23 May 2022 16:52:05 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=spwhitton.name; h=cc:cc:content-type:date:date:from:from:in-reply-to :in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references:reply-to:sender :subject:subject:to:to; s=fm3; t=1653339123; x=1653425523; bh=ux gDtkWzDADtT/dnS3sH3PybRsW3J6NPWgBUEuOF27c=; b=kpFGNCMlo1Tv+yzio4 5/A7oBWlIE18sjx2g1IZTQt+ibx9Lr9Y3XHXFzILoossWevn0+gmugeENJ5RQfiJ gvkczGBrfGfNbttZ28lgQPXuBEVHTnTK7xYIrsKCla4gy3ydWsgPr21SjeeofA06 W5h5wAT/J76adCWbSWcCZw3KV8b5Z9Nq3kXM6rX0yRgHWVfpCvmmg14ueHYNHKSj 4bZ6BWcPUH/dzH2OPSEx72X3VHVllNQeO0sRufUQxmOOPBKHuOYlCNYlPMOk/X58 qwhIIxH1/TWsFZTvnuyKgoFHNNsKdo6O3iFpQYg5TG+L0yamcGUN+tYxQtyzBEZH 2q/Q== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:cc:content-type:date:date:feedback-id :feedback-id:from:from:in-reply-to:in-reply-to:message-id :mime-version:references:reply-to:sender:subject:subject:to:to :x-me-proxy:x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s= fm1; t=1653339123; x=1653425523; bh=uxgDtkWzDADtT/dnS3sH3PybRsW3 J6NPWgBUEuOF27c=; b=Uy+AfRdV8g8siZR9emZqfUQBRKzLxkwBhTkbOzbN+s8Y SBcQWwrW8mIQjdtXhaWiBPs7PAix8l/owe+9pAhe5HvXthQBK4Rcc+BAH4QA03k6 ME46HLLTIoq0icmvGugvAH+L9PmJa78ZrDVyokQ6piXK8g+rRkoiVhcJhkPyIU+h dIOrYjACJUfG4GVCGiY1OHr/Ivk4T5J0bM5NloGkZp6gZD4HZs/pv0aXYP/gKZhE 5dB/vXskelz3jOZlup5988b23tMCQSdVCGfsH/5l9lXBkP1ScLV5cAqC2gVOpubD VrVEPRTHAZjDYA3v2JtnHZSqPSL6G47QChH+nogjwQ== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Received: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedvfedrjedugdduvdefucetufdoteggodetrfdotf fvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuhfgrshhtofgrihhlpdfqfgfvpdfurfetoffkrfgpnffqhgen uceurghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucesvcftvggtihhpihgvnhhtshculddquddttddmne cujfgurhephffvvefujghffgffkfggtgesthdttddttdertdenucfhrhhomhepufgvrghn ucghhhhithhtohhnuceoshhpfihhihhtthhonhesshhpfihhihhtthhonhdrnhgrmhgvqe enucggtffrrghtthgvrhhnpedvjeettdeiteejgeejkefggfehtdekledtfedtteekgfeu keeftdduhfetleejkeenucevlhhushhtvghrufhiiigvpedtnecurfgrrhgrmhepmhgrih hlfhhrohhmpehsphifhhhithhtohhnsehsphifhhhithhtohhnrdhnrghmvg X-ME-Proxy: Feedback-ID: i23c04076:Fastmail Original-Received: by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA; Mon, 23 May 2022 16:52:03 -0400 (EDT) Original-Received: by athena.silentflame.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id F31F11B5C1E; Mon, 23 May 2022 20:52:01 +0000 (UTC) In-Reply-To: <83v8tw5oly.fsf@gnu.org> Received-SPF: pass client-ip=64.147.123.24; envelope-from=spwhitton@spwhitton.name; helo=wout1-smtp.messagingengine.com X-Spam_score_int: -26 X-Spam_score: -2.7 X-Spam_bar: -- X-Spam_report: (-2.7 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, GAPPY_SUBJECT=0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action 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:290177 Archived-At: Hello, On Mon 23 May 2022 at 05:07pm +03, Eli Zaretskii wrote: >> 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". I wrote "almost" because only C-x 4 a and C-x 4 C-j satisfy both of the following conditions: 1. Obvious -other-window and -other-frame variants exist 2. There is already a binding under C-x 4. For commands satisfying these two conditions, symmetry is worthwhile -- otherwise, we're asking the user to remember which of them is missing. All of C-x 5 u, C-x 5 2, and C-x 5 o fail condition (1). In addition, I think the existing symmetry makes it such that binding anything else to C-x 5 C-j would be hard for people to remember -- that's what I mean by an implicit semi-reservation. If I'm right that the only thing we would want to bind there is what I'm proposing to bind there, then it makes sense to do so for everyone. -- Sean Whitton