Re: Add function to rotate/transpose all windows

[Pranshu Sharma via "Emacs development discussions." <emacs-devel@gnu.org>]

Juri Linkov <juri@linkov.net> writes:

>>> - Have you settled on final names for your functions?  I need them so I
>>>   can write a(n at least) preliminary section in the Elisp manual.
>>
>> I have
>
> What are these names?  It seems such names would be suitable:
>
> - rotate-windows
>
> - rotate-windows-back

this combo is much better than the clockwise-anticlockwise alternaitve.
Should it be backward-rotate-windows instead, as that is generally used
for these kind of names?

> - rotate-window-layout
> - rotate-window-layout-back

Here we should have clockwise and anti clockwise IMO.  They do imply a direction.
>
> - flip-window-layout-horizontally
> - flip-window-layout-vertically

These 2 are good.

>
> - flip-window-layout-diagonally
>   This is a better name than transpose-windows.
>   To transpose all windows means this transformation
>   that swaps x-axis and y-axis:
>
>   +------------+------------+      +----------------+--------+
>   |            |     B      |      |        A       |        |
>   |     A      +------------+      |                |        |
>   |            |     C      |  =>  +--------+-------+   D    |
>   +------------+------------+      |   B    |   C   |        |
>   |            D            |      |        |       |        |
>   +-------------------------+      +--------+-------+--------+

Flip-diagnally pretty much means transpose in most cases, transpose is
the established terminology already, eg when you transpose tables, and
matracies.  flip-window-layout-diagonally is a bit too verbose for me.

>
>>> - Have the keybindings been established?
>>
>> Juri, what do you think?  IMO we could have
> What is mnemonic of 'c'.  I see no letter 'c' in "rotate layout".

In my head I was thinking cycle-windows.  Now I am stuck as to where we
can put them, rotate-window-layout's and rotate-windows's logical
keybindings are the same.  Perhaps we might have to go with an unmemonic
keybinding.

>> IMO preserving keybindings for future use is premature optimisation,
>> breaking backward compatibility in terms of keybindings is generally
>> harmless.
>
> Experience shows that replacing established keys is not quite
> harmless.

As in, what happens?

Plus I doubt many  people use 'C-x w' as it is pretty new.

>> We discussed this previously, and decided that it should not be in
>> window.el as it is loaded, instead we should put it in an autoloaded
>> file.  IMO we should make new file window-transpose.el, putting it in
>> windowmove would not make much sense.  wdyt?
>
> Eli suggested window-x.el, so let's use this.

Oh yes, I remember, I was confused between window-util or window-extra,
this is good.