Re: "C-x 5 5" vs "C-x 4 1" inconsistency

["Kévin Le Gouguec" <kevin.legouguec@gmail.com>]

Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> writes:

> That's a peculiar argument.  There's only one "C-x K K" combination
> for any K, and yet we have more than a dozen commands starting with
> "C-x 4" and similarly for "C-x 5".  Does it mean that all but one of
> them is not ergonomic?

All I meant was that given a choice between C-x K K and C-x K x, the
former feels more "ergonomic" (by which I mostly mean "durr mashing same
key twice is easy, me likes it 🤪"; dunno if Stefan's definition of the
word is more sophisticated[1]).

I did not mean to comment on the dozen other commands in
{ctl-x-4,ctl-x-5,tab-prefix}-map (I don't find C-x [45] very ergonomic
anyway on AZERTY, since digits require holding Shift).

I acknowledge that the ergonomics argument, by itself, does not justify
breaking the current convention ("similar commands end with identical
keys"), and there is no reason a priori that C-x K K, "ergonomic" as it
might be, should be given to other-X-prefix.

All I can say is that it makes some intuitive sense to me: commands
starting with C-x K ∀K∈{4,5,t} generally mean "Do/find/visit something
in another X", therefore "hit K twice to run next command in another X"
does not sound too outlandish.


[1] <CADwFkmnoMJeUGfPS5jAbYso0fWCLOrYnWuW7FcFvnZx0mpuqYg@mail.gmail.com>
    https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/emacs-devel/2021-10/msg00765.html