Re: Introducing thread-safe Tramp

[Michael Albinus]

Howard Melman <address@hidden> writes:

Hi Howard,

> My sense is that the proposed C-x & is a prefix, because it
> is used before another key sequence. It is not an argument
> because it doesn't affect the functions' argument list the
> way C-u does.

I'd agree with this.

> Maybe the term should be "prefix sequence"?

I like this proposal. "Prefix key sequence" would be more precise, but
it doesn't read fluid. If there isn't any objection over the next week,
I'll apply your wording.

> Wasn't there are a proposal at one point to do something
> similar for C-x 4 and C-x 5 so that there didn't have to be
> -other-window and -other-frame variants of so many
> commands? 

I'm not aware of such a proposal (which only means that my memory is
bad), but it makes sense.

Best regards, Michael.