Re: Suggestion for C-t (transpose-chars)

[Dieter Wilhelm]

Richard Stallman <address@hidden> writes:

> C-t's argument handling should be consistent with M-t and C-M-t.

As I've already written to S. Monnier, I would break the nice
symmetry.  Since the reasons for using C-t and M-t, C-M-t are stemming
from different sources.

Transposing characters is typing related, confusing words and sexps is
probably another brain defect ;-).  Thus the effects are also mostly
different: Neighbouring characters are merely exchanged but the
structure of words/sexps seem often stronger disturbed.

> Right now, the argument is equivalent to a repeat count.  That is
> conceptually simple.  A priori we should prefer that.  However, if
> users generally prefer your change, that would outweigh the advantage
> of conceptual simplicity.

I understand that when nobody shows interest I shall drop the subject.
No problem with this, I consider it a wise approach.

>
> Thus, the next step is to ask people to try it and see how they
> respond.

I'll try at some stage, thanks.

------------------------------
P.S.: I'd also like to preserve the old behaviour of C-t with a
switch.  I seems that--for my typing style--in seldom cases it is
desirable as well.

-- 
    Best wishes

    H. Dieter Wilhelm
    Darmstadt, Germany