[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: C-x C-f RET change
From: |
Drew Adams |
Subject: |
RE: C-x C-f RET change |
Date: |
Thu, 10 Nov 2005 08:40:09 -0800 |
> I too prefer the old behavior, especially for `C-x 4 f'.
Uh, why? C-x 2 is easier.
I do use `C-x 2' to split a window - which I do only rarely.
I use pop-up-frames = t. Each buffer is in its own frame, by default. So, I
use `C-x 4 f' to open the same file in another frame (cloning the frame, in
effect). I do that, for example, to examine different parts of the same file
side by side.
With the new behavior, I must enter the file name (though I can use M-n to
get it, so this is no biggee).
BTW - I didn't mean to suggest, by my post, that Emacs should necessarily
return to the old behavior; I meant only to report one (no doubt atypical)
user's preference. I should have mentioned that explicitly, along with
mentioning pop-up-frames = t. Thanks for prompting me to be clearer.
- C-x C-f RET change, Florian Weimer, 2005/11/09
- Re: C-x C-f RET change, Reiner Steib, 2005/11/09
- RE: C-x C-f RET change, Drew Adams, 2005/11/09
- Re: C-x C-f RET change, Eli Zaretskii, 2005/11/09
- Re: C-x C-f RET change, David Kastrup, 2005/11/10
- RE: C-x C-f RET change,
Drew Adams <=
- Re: C-x C-f RET change, Andreas Schwab, 2005/11/10
- RE: C-x C-f RET change, Drew Adams, 2005/11/10
- Re: C-x C-f RET change, David Kastrup, 2005/11/10
- RE: C-x C-f RET change, Drew Adams, 2005/11/10
- Re: C-x C-f RET change, David Kastrup, 2005/11/10
- RE: C-x C-f RET change, Drew Adams, 2005/11/10
- Re: C-x C-f RET change, Juri Linkov, 2005/11/11
- RE: C-x C-f RET change, Drew Adams, 2005/11/11
Re: C-x C-f RET change, Edward O'Connor, 2005/11/09
Re: C-x C-f RET change, Richard M. Stallman, 2005/11/09