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

[Eli Zaretskii]

> From: Sean Whitton <spwhitton@spwhitton.name>
> Date: Mon, 23 May 2022 06:54:20 -0700
> 
> 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.

My point is that it may be useful for you, but is not necessarily
useful enough for others to justify a global "C-x 5" binding.

> As Juri has determined, it's almost the only one that doesn't match
> right now.

"C-x 4 a" is also unpaired, as are "C-x 5 u", "C-x 5 2", and "C-x 5 o".
That's hardly "almost".

> 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.

See above: we already have asymmetry.