RE: managing windows in two frames

[Drew Adams <drew.adams@oracle.com>]

> Make C-x 5 a prefix key which sets display-buffer-overriding-action for
> the duration of the next command.
> 
> So C-x 5 C-x C-f will do the same as what you currently get with C-x 5 f
> (of course, we'd also preserve a C-x 5 f binding for backward
> compatibility, 

For more than just that, no?  `C-x 5 C-x C-f' is not as simple as
`C-x 5 f'.  Occam would grumble.

Yes, Occam might be somewhat happy to eliminate the "extra" commands
`*-other-window' and `*-other-frame', and just have `*'.  But the devil
is in the details.  It's not clear, so far, whether users would find
this simpler or more complicated.

> and we wouldn't need find-file-other-frame any more,

Do you mean only for `C-x 5 f'?  Someone will likely want to bind such
a command (or whatever it becomes) to additional keys, no?  Sure s?he
could make do with a lambda expression or whatever, if necessary.
But why?  (It's not clear to me just what you have in mind.)

> although we'd also have to keep it for backward compatibility).

For more than just that, I expect...

> Of course, other such prefixes could be used, such as C-x 4.

BTW, what do you do with `C-x 4 C-x 5 C-x C-f'?  By your description,
I guess that does the same thing as `C-x 4 f'?

> And as Martin mentions, we'd want one that can say "display in current
> window".  That should be no harder to define than C-x 4 or C-x 5.

Suppose it were `C-x 6', for kicks.  Would `C-x 6 C-x 4 C-x 5 C-x C-f'
then be the same as `C-x C-f'?

Will you at least be keeping `C-x C-f' "for backward compatibility"?

> More generally you could define such a prefix key that lets you specify
> a particular window to use in the next command.

Could we see a spec of some kind (better description), before the
implementation and possible deprecations?