Re: Tab bar tabs landed on master

[Ergus <spacibba@aol.com>]

On Mon, Oct 07, 2019 at 08:18:59PM +0300, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
>> From: Juri Linkov <juri@linkov.net>
>> Cc: spacibba@aol.com,  lekktu@gmail.com,  emacs-devel@gnu.org
>> Date: Sun, 06 Oct 2019 22:53:40 +0300
>>
>> > 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.
>
>Then how about the suggestion to use "C-x t" instead?
>
>> 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.
>
>Asking them and receiving the answers could take ages.  I don't think
>we have that time.  We need to decide soon, because once the emacs-27
>branch is cut, it will be harder to make such changes.
>
>Would more people please speak up on this issue, and suggest
>alternative prefixes if they have ideas about that?
>
Hi:

(Advertisement: personal opinion here)

Call me revolutionary, but I am perfectly fine to set this to `C-x 6`
and move the old one to a better place (when needed) Specially if this
keeps things more organized and `standardized` somehow (easier to
remember/associate).

2C already have something much more "privileged": f2 is short,
exclusive and mnemonic... Very few commands has the privilege to get a
single key binding as 2C already do. Free bindings does not grow like
mushrooms in emacs... ;p

C-x t is "fine", but if breaks the sequence 4 5 6 (which is not a
disaster, but will break the "standard" we have been following up to
now.) In order of priority I will base the decisions:

1- ergonomic
2- mnemonic
2.5- economy of shorter bindings
3- backward compatibility (terminal compatibility/limitations are exception)
4- historical reasons.

So actually I prefer C-x 6 for this feature that potentially may be very
popular for new users as all the browsers and modern applications use
them....

C-x t on the other hand is popular for "term" and similar commands
(better-shell multi-term and so on...) so in the future we should
consider maybe to set it to something related to that if possible.



>> As the comment in two-column.el explains, a choice of C-x 6 for 2C-command
>> was just a historic accident.
>
>That might be so, but I don't think we can correct that accident
>without some transition period.  Which is not possible ion this case.