Re: Transposing words over middle words

[Stefan Monnier]

>> > C-u 0 M-t works fine.
>> BTW, I'd argue that C-u M-t should work as well: currently it is treated
>> like C-u 4 M-t, but I think it's a poor choice.
> Really?  That a lone C-u means an arg of 4 is burnt into our muscle
> memory for decades.

Not sure who "our" refers to, but I sure don't belong to that group.

> Compare with "C-u C-n".  A command that receives
> a numerical argument normally treats all of its arguments as numbers.

But M-t already breaks this promise for the 0 case.

> Breaking that in a single command sounds like a misfeature.

That's a valid opinion, but I disagree with it.


        Stefan "who would use this principle in sdeveral other cases, so it
                wouldn't be the «single exception»"