[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: C-x 2 and C-x 3
From: |
Lennart Borgman |
Subject: |
Re: C-x 2 and C-x 3 |
Date: |
Wed, 26 Oct 2011 15:43:58 +0200 |
On Wed, Oct 26, 2011 at 15:38, David De La Harpe Golden
<address@hidden> wrote:
> On 26/10/11 13:20, Lennart Borgman wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Oct 26, 2011 at 14:13, Jambunathan K<address@hidden>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Jambunathan K<address@hidden> writes:
>>>
>>>>> Martin recently introduced the command names
>>>>>
>>>>> split-window-above-each-other -> C-x 2
>>>>> split-window-side-by-side -> C-x 3
>>
>> Why do we need new names? Are not those introduced by Martin very
>> clear and good?
>>
>
> "side-by-side" isn't so bad I suppose, but "above eachother" just doesn't
> make sense. "above eachother": window A above window B AND window B above
> window A.
;-)
> Contrast "one above the other" - makes sense, and is fairly idiomatic
> english (e.g. [1]), even if a bit of a mouthful.
So then why not just rename it to split-window-one-above-the-other?
(Or something similar.)
- Re: C-x 2 and C-x 3, (continued)
Re: C-x 2 and C-x 3, Jambunathan K, 2011/10/26
- Re: C-x 2 and C-x 3, Lennart Borgman, 2011/10/26
- Re: C-x 2 and C-x 3, David De La Harpe Golden, 2011/10/26
- Re: C-x 2 and C-x 3,
Lennart Borgman <=
- Re: C-x 2 and C-x 3, Deniz Dogan, 2011/10/26
- Re: C-x 2 and C-x 3, David De La Harpe Golden, 2011/10/26
- Re: C-x 2 and C-x 3, Juri Linkov, 2011/10/27
RE: C-x 2 and C-x 3, Drew Adams, 2011/10/26
Re: C-x 2 and C-x 3, Lennart Borgman, 2011/10/26
RE: C-x 2 and C-x 3, Drew Adams, 2011/10/26
Re: C-x 2 and C-x 3, David De La Harpe Golden, 2011/10/26
Re: C-x 2 and C-x 3, Dave Abrahams, 2011/10/26
Re: C-x 2 and C-x 3, Eli Zaretskii, 2011/10/26
Re: C-x 2 and C-x 3, Ulrich Mueller, 2011/10/26