Re: Tab bar tabs landed on master

[Juri Linkov <juri@linkov.net>]

>> > Does it mean the tab-bar related "C-x 6" prefix conflicts with 2C?  If
>> > so, perhaps we should use "C-x 7" instead, as long as the genie is not
>> > far from the bottle.
>>
>> "C-x 6" is the perfect prefix for tab commands because it's easier to
>> remember as continuation of the sequence with window prefix "C-x 4"
>> and frame prefix "C-x 5":
>
> I agree, but if "C-x 6" is already used, it's taken.  Is it such a
> catastrophe to use "C-x 7"?

"C-x 7" is an illogical key, it breaks the sequence of C-x 4, C-x 5.

>> > I'd like to avoid backward-incompatible changes if possible.
>>
>> Actually it's not quite backward-incompatible because it's still
>> available after loading two-column.el.
>
> And then the tab-bar commands cannot be invoked via "C-x 6".  That's
> very confusing, I think.  We should avoid a situation where 2 core
> packages fight each other over key bindings.

We need to ask the users of 2C how often they use C-x 6.
I believe they are using a more mnemonic key f2.

>> Also please read this comment in two-column.el that admits it's not mnemonic:
>>
>>   ;; This one is for historical reasons and simple keyboards, it is not
>>   ;; at all mnemonic.  All usual sequences containing 2 were used, and
>>   ;; f2 could not be set up in a standard way under Emacs 18.
>>   (global-set-key "\C-x6" '2C-command)
>
> It says nothing about whether people still use it, nor what exactly
> "simple keyboards" means.  Sorry, I still think there's a problem
> here.

As the comment in two-column.el explains, a choice of C-x 6 for 2C-command
was just a historic accident.

Using C-x 6 for tabs is more future-proof for next Emacs versions.