Subject: bug#64868: 29.1; C-x O binding suggestion for (other-window -1)

From: Van Ly <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2023 13:19:48 GMT

> Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2023 14:15:06 +0300
> From: Eli Zaretskii <[email-masked]>
> Cc: [email-masked]
> 
> What's wrong with "C-- C-x o" (or "C-u - C-x o" if you are on a
> text-mode terminal)?
> 

C-- shrinks the font size depending on the console.

To run the universal-argument command I map the C-u to somewhere else
as the fingers more frequently use C-u for rubbing out from the
current position to left margin position zero. I use Super-u or
Escape-u for universal-argument and avoid that if I can because Super
and Escape are read differently depending on console and keyboard
context.

> > May I suggest to make possible the binding C-x O for (other-window -1)
> > as follows
> 
> We don't have too many free key sequences, so "wasting" one on
> something that can be easily achieved via an existing binding is not a
> good idea, IMO.

I agree.  I guess we could use C-x O for now until something more
preferable comes along to occupy the big O. org-mode?  That fits
nicely next to project.

> Of course, you can always make this binding in your own configuration.
> What I wrote above is about the default bindings -- I see no
> justification to change that.

Perhaps there could be a minor mode to flip the switch on C-u and C-h
behavior.  Rolling your own C-u and C-h behavior breaks functionality
for example to find completions to C-x p using

 <f1> c C-x p <f1>

doesn't do what the default C-h does I guess

 <f1> c C-x p C-h ; or TAB, I guess wrong there too

The fallback is to search the output from <f1> b or the
describe-bindings command for C-x p.