Re: Add function to rotate/transpose all windows

[Juri Linkov]

>> - rotate-windows
>>
>> - rotate-windows-back
>
> this combo is much better than the clockwise-anticlockwise alternaitve.
> Should it be backward-rotate-windows instead, as that is generally used
> for these kind of names?

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.

Then we could create a new command 'other-window-back'
for '(lambda () (interactive) (other-window -1))'.

>> - rotate-window-layout
>> - rotate-window-layout-back
>
> Here we should have clockwise and anti clockwise IMO.  They do imply a 
> direction.

Ok.

>> - flip-window-layout-diagonally
>>   This is a better name than transpose-windows.
>>   To transpose all windows means this transformation
>>   that swaps x-axis and y-axis:
>>
>>   +------------+------------+      +----------------+--------+
>>   |            |     B      |      |        A       |        |
>>   |     A      +------------+      |                |        |
>>   |            |     C      |  =>  +--------+-------+   D    |
>>   +------------+------------+      |   B    |   C   |        |
>>   |            D            |      |        |       |        |
>>   +-------------------------+      +--------+-------+--------+
>
> 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.

>> 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.

>>> 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.

> Plus I doubt many  people use 'C-x w' as it is pretty new.

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