From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Alan Mackenzie Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Proposal: new default bindings for winner and windmove Date: Tue, 2 Jul 2024 20:12:47 +0000 Message-ID: References: <875xto7lbn.fsf@dancol.org> <86ed8ce2mh.fsf@mail.linkov.net> <81b620d7-18a6-4c6e-8517-147a411ee882@gutov.dev> <5ab51946-997e-42ee-b36a-35fd80020fc3@gutov.dev> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="15238"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" Cc: Juri Linkov , Daniel Colascione , Stefan Kangas , Stefan Monnier , emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Dmitry Gutov Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Tue Jul 02 22:13:55 2024 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 1sOjsx-0003s2-KB for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Tue, 02 Jul 2024 22:13:55 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1sOjs1-0000vz-CE; Tue, 02 Jul 2024 16:12:57 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1sOjrz-0000vj-Cs for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 02 Jul 2024 16:12:55 -0400 Original-Received: from mail.muc.de ([193.149.48.3]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1sOjrx-00078e-4f for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 02 Jul 2024 16:12:55 -0400 Original-Received: (qmail 86344 invoked by uid 3782); 2 Jul 2024 22:12:48 +0200 Original-Received: from muc.de (p4fe15e87.dip0.t-ipconnect.de [79.225.94.135]) (using STARTTLS) by colin.muc.de (tmda-ofmipd) with ESMTP; Tue, 02 Jul 2024 22:12:48 +0200 Original-Received: (qmail 18588 invoked by uid 1000); 2 Jul 2024 20:12:47 -0000 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <5ab51946-997e-42ee-b36a-35fd80020fc3@gutov.dev> X-Submission-Agent: TMDA/1.3.x (Ph3nix) X-Primary-Address: acm@muc.de Received-SPF: pass client-ip=193.149.48.3; envelope-from=acm@muc.de; helo=mail.muc.de X-Spam_score_int: -18 X-Spam_score: -1.9 X-Spam_bar: - X-Spam_report: (-1.9 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, 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: 2.1.29 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-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.io gmane.emacs.devel:321205 Archived-At: Hello, Dmitry. On Tue, Jul 02, 2024 at 22:53:00 +0300, Dmitry Gutov wrote: > On 02/07/2024 21:34, Alan Mackenzie wrote: > > This brings me back to my point about being careful about making default > > bindings. It would seem next/previous-buffer-other-window, whether yet > > existing or not, have a greater claim on C-x 4 / than the > > windmove functions... > If they were useful enough, perhaps - though that doesn't seem to be the > case, given that those commands haven't been added by now. That would be a judgment call, not something black and white. My guess is that next/previous-buffer-other-window would be very useful indeed to a small number of users. Much like the windmove functions will be useful to some users. I can't help but think we're shooting ourselves in the foot by having C-x and C-x 4 which don't do the same thing in different windows. Which brings us back again to the question why C-x 4 ? As somebody (you, perhaps?) mentioned, we have C-x w bindings for window operations. Why not C-x w instead? -- Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).