RE: add Tab to ELPA other-frame-window

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

jl>> C-x 7  -  other-window
jl>> C-x 9  -  other-frame
jl>> But I don't know what prefix to propose for other-tab.
jl>> There are no more digits available on the C-x prefix.

sl> I always bind different keys for the prefix anyway
sl> (M-m other-window, M-M other-frame); we could just
sl> define the functions and not choose a default binding.
sl> Or use C-x t; that's free.

"We could just define the functions and not choose
a default binding."

Yes, that's preferable to sacrificing `C-x t' as a
default binding.

Define the commands.  Define keys for them in a
keymap.  But don't bind the keymap to any prefix
key by default.

sm> The choice of a useful yet "safe" default is
sm> not obvious, indeed.
sm> But users can decide to use C-x 3, C-x 6, C-x 5
sm> or whatever they fee like.

Yes, let users decide.

Define a keymap variable, to make it easy to use a
prefix key, but don't bind any prefix key by default.

What's wrong with that?

jl>> but let's hear more opinions before changing
jl>> 'C-x 6' to 'C-x t'.

ez> Agreed.  How about changing to "C-x t" if no one
ez> brings up serious objections within a week?

How about serious supporting arguments?
Have there been any?

FWIW, I don't like the idea.  There's nothing
"free" about `C-x t'.  It doesn't have a default
binding; that's all.  And that's a good thing.

Let users and libraries have it, without them
needing to override standard Emacs default
bindings.  Likewise, other `C-x' keys (`C-x 6'
etc.).

(Just one opinion.)