Re: Adding missing C-x 5 C-j and C-x t C-j commands

[Sean Whitton]

Hello,

On Mon 23 May 2022 at 12:16pm +03, Eli Zaretskii wrote:

> I don't think we agreed to have full symmetry between C-x 4 and C-x 5.  I see 
> no special reason for 100% consistency here.  Simple key sequences are at a 
> premium, and we shouldn't usurp them just because we can.
>
> Any user who wants a C-x 5 binding for dired-jump can have such a binding for 
> him or herself.  But why do this by default for everyone?

I certainly agree with you that we shouldn't bind things into C-x 5
willy-nilly.  In this case, however, it's not just because we can, but
because it makes things consistent with C-x 4 in a way that's helpful.
As Juri has determined, it's almost the only one that doesn't match
right now.

Here's a different way to look at it.  Given the existing symmetry
between C-x 4 and C-x 5, if we later bind anything *other* than
dired-jump-other-window to C-x 5 C-j, we would be introducing a special
exception that users would have to remember.  That is, the existing
symmetry has already implicitly semi-reserved C-x 5 C-j for
dired-jump-other-window, by giving us a strong reason not to put
anything else there.

So, given that I'm unlikely to be the only person who has naturally
tried to reach for C-x 5 C-j, let's make the implicit semi-reservation
explicit.  This command is as useful as C-x 4 C-j.

-- 
Sean Whitton