From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Adam Porter Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: [PATCH] New tab-bar-detach-tab command Date: Tue, 05 Oct 2021 02:17:45 -0500 Message-ID: <87a6jovt2e.fsf@alphapapa.net> References: <87h7e4ikkz.fsf@alphapapa.net> <87pmsrrh7y.fsf@mail.linkov.net> <875yujizgi.fsf@alphapapa.net> <87o88bb21y.fsf@mail.linkov.net> <871r57i2cz.fsf@alphapapa.net> <87k0iu6n6x.fsf@mail.linkov.net> <87lf388zo5.fsf@mail.linkov.net> <87r1d0woq1.fsf@alphapapa.net> <878rz8aruo.fsf@mail.linkov.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="8000"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/26.3 (gnu/linux) To: emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Tue Oct 05 09:19:34 2021 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([209.51.188.17]) by ciao.gmane.io with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1mXejd-0001tu-Jl for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Tue, 05 Oct 2021 09:19:33 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:51766 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1mXejc-00035A-2K for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Tue, 05 Oct 2021 03:19:32 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:35644) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1mXeiA-0001fj-TO for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 05 Oct 2021 03:18:02 -0400 Original-Received: from ciao.gmane.io ([116.202.254.214]:56774) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1mXei7-0002cO-QZ for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 05 Oct 2021 03:18:01 -0400 Original-Received: from list by ciao.gmane.io with local (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1mXei5-000AWp-Iy for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 05 Oct 2021 09:17:57 +0200 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ Received-SPF: pass client-ip=116.202.254.214; envelope-from=ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; helo=ciao.gmane.io X-Spam_score_int: -16 X-Spam_score: -1.7 X-Spam_bar: - X-Spam_report: (-1.7 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.249, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: "Emacs-devel" Xref: news.gmane.io gmane.emacs.devel:276303 Archived-At: Juri Linkov writes: >>> Indeed, the key doesn't need to be the first letter of the command name. >>> For example, since 'C-x t d' was already bound to 'dired-other-tab', >>> for 'tab-duplicate' I added 'C-x t n' with the mnemonic of "new". >>> >>> But a month ago a new command 'clone-frame' was added with the >>> keybinding 'C-x 5 c'. So now we have two similar commands with >>> different keys: 'c' - clone frame, and 'n' - duplicate tab. >>> >>> Or maybe these commands are quite different? I tried 'clone-frame', >>> but it neither clones nor duplicates the frame - it creates >>> a completely new window configuration on the new frame. >> >> I suppose a `tab-clone' command would be more concise than >> `tab-duplicate', and it would also fit with other commands like >> `clone-buffer' (I don't see any other commands in my Emacs with >> "duplicate" in the name). Then the binding could be "C-x t c". > > The command was named "duplicate" because web browsers > provide the menu item "Duplicate tab". Of course, that makes sense. But since "clone" seems to already be a term used in Emacs for this sort of thing, maybe we should consider using it, instead. For example, `clone-buffer' and `clone-process' both "Create a twin copy of...". That the new `clone-frame' command only "Make[s] a new frame with the same parameters as FRAME" and doesn't include its window configuration seems like an anomaly (maybe that should be changed, too, for consistency?). > Also since 'clone-frame' doesn't duplicate the frame, > we could add a new command 'duplicate-frame' as well. Maybe so, but I wonder if it would be better to consistently use "clone" to mean "Create a twin copy of...", and use "duplicate" to mean something like what the `clone-frame' command currently does, i.e. create a copy that shares some attributes but not all. In that case, the current `clone-frame' command could be renamed to `duplicate-frame', and `duplicate-tab' could be renamed to `clone-tab'. Maybe these details are too subtle to matter, but on the other hand, it would seem more consistent with existing Emacs jargon if if worked that way.