[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Keybinding nit
From: |
David Kastrup |
Subject: |
Re: Keybinding nit |
Date: |
Fri, 20 Oct 2006 09:43:00 +0200 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.0.50 (gnu/linux) |
"Jan D." <address@hidden> writes:
> David Kastrup skrev:
>> Richard Stallman <address@hidden> 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?
>>>
>>> Since C-x k reads a buffer name, I would expect C-x 4 k to
>>> read a buffer name also.
>>
>> Well, I wouldn't (there are quite a few keybindings where "k" just
>> kills something). And since neither C-x 0 nor C-x 5 0 kills a buffer,
>> I would not expect C-x 4 0 to do it, either.
>>
>> It all boils down to what feels more natural and expected. Of course
>> that is a matter of personal taste, and I like to think my taste is
>> not too far out here. Other opinions?
>
> I think changing C-x 4 0 to just kill the window and adding C-x 4 k to kill
> buffer and window makes sense.
>
> But I have a question for C-x 5 k. If you have more than one window
> showing different buffers in the frame, shall it kill all the
> buffers, or prompt for the one to kill? I'd assume the latter. The
> prompt could be skipped if there is just one buffer shown in that
> frame.
Good catch. I'd just kill the selected window of the frame.
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
- Re: Keybinding nit, (continued)
Re: Keybinding nit, Richard Stallman, 2006/10/19
Re: Keybinding nit, Jan D., 2006/10/20
Re: Keybinding nit,
David Kastrup <=
RE: Keybinding nit, Drew Adams, 2006/10/20