Re: Adding missing C-x 5 C-j and C-x t C-j commands

[Sean Whitton <spwhitton@spwhitton.name>]

Hello,

On Mon 23 May 2022 at 05:07pm +03, Eli Zaretskii wrote:

>> From: Sean Whitton <spwhitton@spwhitton.name>
>> Date: Mon, 23 May 2022 06:54:20 -0700
>>
>> I certainly agree with you that we shouldn't bind things into C-x 5
>> willy-nilly.  In this case, however, it's not just because we can, but
>> because it makes things consistent with C-x 4 in a way that's helpful.
>
> My point is that it may be useful for you, but is not necessarily
> useful enough for others to justify a global "C-x 5" binding.
>
>> As Juri has determined, it's almost the only one that doesn't match
>> right now.
>
> "C-x 4 a" is also unpaired, as are "C-x 5 u", "C-x 5 2", and "C-x 5 o".
> That's hardly "almost".

I wrote "almost" because only C-x 4 a and C-x 4 C-j satisfy both of the
following conditions:

  1. Obvious -other-window and -other-frame variants exist
  2. There is already a binding under C-x 4.

For commands satisfying these two conditions, symmetry is worthwhile --
otherwise, we're asking the user to remember which of them is missing.
All of C-x 5 u, C-x 5 2, and C-x 5 o fail condition (1).

In addition, I think the existing symmetry makes it such that binding
anything else to C-x 5 C-j would be hard for people to remember --
that's what I mean by an implicit semi-reservation.  If I'm right that
the only thing we would want to bind there is what I'm proposing to bind
there, then it makes sense to do so for everyone.

-- 
Sean Whitton