Re: Add function to rotate/transpose all windows

[Pranshu Sharma]

Juri Linkov <juri@linkov.net> writes:

> This implies also forward-rotate-windows.  But better to keep the same
> name prefix while adding the suffix -back as in e.g.
> Info-history-back, help-go-back, xref-go-back.

You are right, roate-windows-back would be better

>> Flip-diagnally pretty much means transpose in most cases, transpose
>> is the established terminology already, eg when you transpose tables,
>> and matracies.  flip-window-layout-diagonally is a bit too verbose
>> for me.
>
> Then transpose-windows is fine, and the docstring could refer
> to similarity with matrix transposition, and also describe
> flipping it over its diagonal.

Ok, once we settle on the keybidnings and names, I will send final diff
with updated docstring.

>>> What is mnemonic of 'c'.  I see no letter 'c' in "rotate layout".
>>
>> In my head I was thinking cycle-windows.  Now I am stuck as to where
>> we
>> can put them, rotate-window-layout's and rotate-windows's logical
>> keybindings are the same.  Perhaps we might have to go with an
>> unmemonic
>> keybinding.
>
> Or we could try to find a better key.

ideas?

>>>> Imo preserving keybindings for future use is premature
>>>> optimisation,
>>>> breaking backward compatibility in terms of keybindings is
>>>> generally
>>>> harmless.
>>>
>>> Experience shows that replacing established keys is not quite
>>> harmless.
>>
>> As in, what happens?
>
> People complain furiously that their favorite keys do not work anymore
> as they used to.

Oh, if seniors complaining about this is an issue, we can definetly look
over it.  I don't see window-toggle-side-windows being anyone's
faviourate command.  The only keybindng a senior might use is "C-x w
{2,3}".  The last keybinding drama I can remember was with the register
thing, and that was a pretty signficant change.

Are there any other examples where people complained?

> 'C-x w' is two versions old since Emacs 29.1.

29.1 feature are lightspeed ahead for the kind of crowd we are talking
about