Re: POLL: make C-x o transient

[Gregory Heytings]

> I pointed out that nothing is gained by replacing `C-x z' by `C-='.

Once again: what is gained is the possibility to change the command 
argument between two repetitions of a command, without typing the command 
again and without even releasing the control key.  This is not "nothing". 
Remember that the OP wanted to "reduce the probability of RSI", by 
minimizing key presses and releases.

To be more explicit, what is gained is something of the simplicity of a 
modal structure: for example, you type C-x ` for next-error once, after 
which you navigate forwards and backwards through the errors without 
releasing the control key.  And likewise for C-x o, C-x 5 o, C-x ], C-x {, 
C-x ^, and so forth.

> But again, my _main point_ was about not wasting a repeatable key (e.g. 
> `C-=') for a NON-repeatable command (`repeat').
>
> It may not have been obvious to some (and so far, you haven't 
> acknowledged this deficiency in your argument in favor of `C-=' as a 
> replacement for `C-x z') that command `repeat' (now`C-x z') is NOT a 
> repeatable command.

I did not comment that point indeed, because IMO you are reasoning with a 
false postulate: "the command repeat is not a repeatable command".  I 
don't know how you define "repeatable command", but for me a "repeatable 
command" is a command that has a new effect each time it is executed, and 
a "non-repeatable command" is a command that has the same effect 
regardless of the number of times it is executed (a mathematician would 
perhaps say that it is an idempotent command).  An example of a repeatable 
command is "next-line", an example of a non-repeatable command is 
"move-end-of-line".  Therefore it seems to me that "repeat" is a 
repeatable command: each time it is executed, it executes the previous 
command once more.