RE: Introducing thread-safe Tramp

[Drew Adams]

> > 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.

What is it a prefix of? A prefix is part of what it is a prefix of.

> > Maybe the term should be "prefix sequence"?

Sequence of what?

> 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.

Please don't.

This is _not_ a prefix key. A key is a key sequence. A prefix key is a key 
sequence that is a prefix of a larger key sequence. But in Emacs a prefix key 
also has the specific meaning of a key sequence that is bound to a keymap. `C-x 
&' is not bound to a keymap, and is thus not a prefix key (sequence).

Until and unless we really do decide to baptize this and document it, please 
just what RMS suggested: don't call it anything. Certainly please do not call 
it just a "prefix" or a "prefix key (sequence)".

> > 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.

I believe he's thinking of Stefan's wish to have prefix keys `C-x 4' and `C-x 
5' work automatically, without defining separate other-window and other-frame 
commands. That's something completely different. Let's please not let this 
thread wander farther than it already has.