Re: Keybinding nit

[Peter Lee]

>>>> David Kastrup writes:

    > C-x 4 0 and C-x 5 0 are not at all symmetric, and C-x 4 0 is not
    > really intuitive.
    > Maybe one should rather have C-x 4 k and C-x 5 k for killing both
    > buffer and window/frame?
    > That would be quite closer to
    > C-x k RET C-x 0
    > and
    > C-x k RET C-x 5 0

I use:

C-x 4 k - kill other buffer
C-x 4 K - kill other buffer and delete the window

C-x k - kill buffer
C-x K - kill buffer and delete the window

If I were to use frames, I would probably use the same scheme.  I'm not sure why
Emacs, in general, doesn't leverage the upper-case binding for variations on a
command.  It seems intuitive to me.

e.g. if C-x C-s -> save-buffer
why not  C-x C-S -> save-some-buffers