RE: C-n and C-a

[Drew Adams]

> >> I propose `C-x n v' (similar to the related key `C-x C-n' plus `v'
> >> that stands for "visual") or `C-x l v' (with the mnemonics of
> >> "line visual").
> >
> > 3. C-x n is the narrowing/widening prefix. This seems 
> > unrelated to narrowing.
> >
> > C-x n d             narrow-to-defun
> > C-x n n             narrow-to-region
> > C-x n p             narrow-to-page
> > C-x n w             widen
> > ...               (future)
> 
> Can you invent more narrowing commands?
> If not, then why not to use the same prefix
> for commands that would have some mnemonics
> associated with it?

Dunno, but sure, I imagine that other things could be narrowed (outlines? code
trees? function/type/object definition parts?).

Yes, we have `narrow-to-region' as a general workhorse, but one could conceive
of a narrowed portion composed of multiple, non-contiguous portions of some
document. Both the narrowing and the widening actions could conceivably be as
complex and particular as you like. We could even provide for function binding
to do that.

And Leo already pointed out `org-narrow-to-tree' as another example. But I'm not
familiar with any others, and I have no others in mind.

If the question is whether there conceivably are such opportunities, I'd say
yes. If the question is whether I have any in mind, the answer is no (but is
that relevant?).
 
> > 4. C-x l is count-lines-page.
> 
> Do you often use count-lines-page?

Do I? No. But there are a lot of things I don't use often that I'm sure you
would not want to remove from Emacs. You really don't want that to be the
criterion. ;-)

I don't have an opinion about whether `count-lines-page' deserves a binding, or
deserves this binding.