[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 09:18:49 -0800 |
> 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).
What's wrong with `C-x 5 2'?
Nothing. Good point.
I guess I never think of the `C-x 5' prefix, because I use pop-up-frames =
t. `C-x 4' generally does the same thing as `C-x 5' in that case, except for
a few exceptions like this (there is no `C-x 4 2'). I'm just not in the
habit of using the `C-x 5' commands.
I also use a redefinition of `delete-window' (`C-x 0') that deletes a
one-window frame, so I end up just using the window commands to operate on
frames. I forget about the difference, in general, and about the
frame-specific commands, in particular. (As I said, "atypical".)
- 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, 2005/11/10
- Re: C-x C-f RET change, Andreas Schwab, 2005/11/10
- RE: C-x C-f RET change,
Drew Adams <=
- 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