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: Concern about new binding. Date: Mon, 15 Feb 2021 11:15:05 -0700 Message-ID: <87o8gl8afq.fsf@melete.silentflame.com> References: <87zh0mmr54.fsf@gmail.com> <83lfc53whk.fsf@gnu.org> <20210203180142.seu6o3i6u7jhkyrh@Ergus> <83eehx3to5.fsf@gnu.org> <20210203221628.xgvvxjvh56gyswba@Ergus> <20210204070033.pm4ido4hq7a6twif@Ergus> <83sg6brhyg.fsf@gnu.org> <87a6sjpyqs.fsf@gnus.org> <838s83ra3q.fsf@gnu.org> <87mtwjocn7.fsf@gnus.org> <87o8gzpj31.fsf@mail.linkov.net> <87wnvmlwjq.fsf@gnus.org> <87k0rmkh68.fsf@mail.linkov.net> <875z35frk0.fsf@gnus.org> <87o8gxf1fg.fsf@mail.linkov.net> <874kio84ht.fsf@gnus.org> <87mtwg6oi6.fsf@gnus.org> <86czx8bzcz.fsf@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="29337"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" To: Karthik Chikmagalur , emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Mon Feb 15 19:17:26 2021 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 1lBiR4-0007Xk-AP for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Mon, 15 Feb 2021 19:17:26 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:38682 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lBiR3-0007ku-A0 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Mon, 15 Feb 2021 13:17:25 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:45654) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lBiNw-0005Jj-OP for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 15 Feb 2021 13:14:13 -0500 Original-Received: from wout3-smtp.messagingengine.com ([64.147.123.19]:59365) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lBiNs-0007Vz-9P for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 15 Feb 2021 13:14:12 -0500 Original-Received: from compute4.internal (compute4.nyi.internal [10.202.2.44]) by mailout.west.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1A72BF63; Mon, 15 Feb 2021 13:14:04 -0500 (EST) Original-Received: from mailfrontend2 ([10.202.2.163]) by compute4.internal (MEProxy); Mon, 15 Feb 2021 13:14:04 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=spwhitton.name; h=from:to:subject:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id :mime-version:content-type; s=fm2; bh=wa7pWDdr3k7y+jR1N0s+knqUCz u8qqKwGtOyy65a7qg=; b=Q9by++614dkcwAtBB8Mu6/F1OXBcoj+VuVCRHkdJEt I52fyGECcJolwI3htHK2lHaFa+04lKTZst48ygrZusvMGh1+xZ6x6Gjum1h/XTZ9 YW2KWTaKsGr7e1R4SDfRZMvSUWG++8vkmtbYLt+D8ywsTpQzJpqak+jLwxY7wOup WaihwN8iKLsvgnuLf7KG4ImGtPoNB1gr8dr7U9meafHkKyWP4m1i8ssGb11oAq/+ gS/M87BQqrVA1Qb87LsYmjyUMNRL9mB2wJQqa5+rDIXe/TRWFU4HI7p/1gHHpVL6 Y2N/khL5Uyod2CaceOeZx1wfzKz87DKCdnWZLsqoBa+g== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=content-type:date:from:in-reply-to :message-id:mime-version:references:subject:to:x-me-proxy :x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=fm2; bh=wa7pWD dr3k7y+jR1N0s+knqUCzu8qqKwGtOyy65a7qg=; b=nmXcIHaLO8YdmX5cN8cgLQ vYBLrh79VvauFKbR9gj6a+2TUB2uuZnWlcsLHVgoonriqB2aQqTZivtXxgntI17A LYQdAqlNxbq5CEnx/RexnLRTaEESYzCvsncz8nJagMZvdjWmWkRd67Tr4OQnqbgP /vw96FeWr7KX1QvyA2nLN+WHuvSI98nMB8XTMi7v+wRsv4HIMdc+qfeCEt3DLEjU L6a2rpmuW5LJFvmd3cmOziiu1Mzk2fn97t8JpcSxe2Ws0B1SIOLtEiJRwOlViu2L SDmDhw6vviL7tqPoshT5v7azJzsISX69gzIxyZfzWPEAv/xaQzlgkIRPbgxmfDBg == X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgeduledrieekgddutdehucetufdoteggodetrfdotf fvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuhfgrshhtofgrihhlpdfqfgfvpdfurfetoffkrfgpnffqhgen uceurghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucesvcftvggtihhpihgvnhhtshculddquddttddmne cujfgurhephffvufgjfhffkfggtgesthdtredttddttdenucfhrhhomhepufgvrghnucgh hhhithhtohhnuceoshhpfihhihhtthhonhesshhpfihhihhtthhonhdrnhgrmhgvqeenuc ggtffrrghtthgvrhhnpeegtddvheegfffhffdvfeefhffgjefflefhteevffffkeetgfdt jedtiedvtdevheenucevlhhushhtvghrufhiiigvpedtnecurfgrrhgrmhepmhgrihhlfh hrohhmpehsphifhhhithhtohhnsehsphifhhhithhtohhnrdhnrghmvg X-ME-Proxy: In-Reply-To: <86czx8bzcz.fsf@gmail.com> Received-SPF: pass client-ip=64.147.123.19; envelope-from=spwhitton@spwhitton.name; helo=wout3-smtp.messagingengine.com X-Spam_score_int: -27 X-Spam_score: -2.8 X-Spam_bar: -- X-Spam_report: (-2.8 / 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, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23 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:264858 Archived-At: Hello, On Tue 09 Feb 2021 at 03:22PM -08, Karthik Chikmagalur wrote: > Is the rationale for choosing `C-x x' as the prefix for buffer related > commands merely that `C-x g' is popular among magit users? Neither `C-x > g' nor `C-x x' are mnemonic for buffer-related commands, though. I can > think of a couple of alternatives, including `C-x M-b' as the prefix for > buffer commands. If there's a decision to add similar file-related > keybindings in the future (`rename-file', etc), it can neatly slot into > a `C-x M-f' keymap. > > A secondary issue is the choice of keys in ctl-x-x-map: > > 1. `C-x x n': clone-buffer > > Shouldn't this be `C-x x c' for consistency with the similar binding for > `clone-indirect-buffer-other-window' (`C-x 4 c')? The two commands are > even bound five lines apart in lisp/bindings.el! Indirect clones and non-indirect clones are quite different. There is already a convention to use 'n' for a non-indirect clone -- see M-n in Info-mode. -- Sean Whitton