Re: C-x C-f RET change

[Juri Linkov]

> `C-x 2' says to split _this_ window in two; it doesn't say to do anything
> about another window, according to the conventional interpretation. It could
> alternatively be thought of, however, as `make-another-window' instead of
> `split-window', in which case it would make sense as `C-x 4 2'.
>
> So, it might be worth creating a separate `make-another-window' (or
> `make-window-command', in analogy to `make-frame-command'), bound to `C-x 4
> 2'. With pop-up-frames = nil, this would do the same thing as
> `split-window'. With pop-up-frames = t, this would do the same thing as
> `make-frame-command'. That would keep the conventions and terminology
> consistent.

Since `C-x 2' is not the exact equivalent of `C-x 4 f M-n RET'
(the difference is where point lands after the command: in the first case
it is in the initial window, in the second case it is in a new window).
The same difference makes sense for `C-x 2' and new `make-window-command':
`make-window-command' with pop-up-frames=nil would leave point in a new
window, like `make-frame-command' leaves point in a new frame.

-- 
Juri Linkov
http://www.jurta.org/emacs/