[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: C-x 2 and C-x 3
From: |
Stephen J. Turnbull |
Subject: |
Re: C-x 2 and C-x 3 |
Date: |
Fri, 28 Oct 2011 18:31:58 +0900 |
John Yates writes:
> Does anyone else find the term 'split' jarring?
No.
> Many GUI apps have 'splitters' (e.g. Excel). If Emacs' primitives
> really did perform a classic split then the resulting windows would
> show more or less the contents that was on the screen prior to
> performing the split.
This might indeed be preferable.
> But that is not what happens. Emacs' splits really duplicate
> windows.
No, they don't. Both new windows are different from the original in
an important way: they're smaller. They happen to start out
displaying the same content (but once again, the content displayed is
different from the original window's in almost all cases -- which you
can extend to all cases if you're a Pythonista and like significant
whitespace).
And this artifact is useless, as Alan Mackenzie points out.
Similarly, a spreadsheet split is useless until you scroll it, at
which point it is no longer a split of the original content. The
point is the division of a rectangular framing element into two
adjoined rectangular framing elements. If that's not a split, you owe
me my banana back.
I really don't get this focus on an implementation detail of the
displayed content of the window, a detail that is almost invariably
voided instantaneously.
- Re: C-x 2 and C-x 3, (continued)
- Re: C-x 2 and C-x 3, Jambunathan K, 2011/10/27
- RE: C-x 2 and C-x 3, Drew Adams, 2011/10/27
- Re: C-x 2 and C-x 3, Stephen J. Turnbull, 2011/10/27
- RE: C-x 2 and C-x 3, Drew Adams, 2011/10/27
- Re: C-x 2 and C-x 3, Alan Mackenzie, 2011/10/27
- Re: C-x 2 and C-x 3, Jambunathan K, 2011/10/27
- Re: C-x 2 and C-x 3, Lennart Borgman, 2011/10/27
- Re: C-x 2 and C-x 3, Jambunathan K, 2011/10/27
- Re: C-x 2 and C-x 3, Thien-Thi Nguyen, 2011/10/27
- Re: C-x 2 and C-x 3, John Yates, 2011/10/27
- Re: C-x 2 and C-x 3,
Stephen J. Turnbull <=
- Re: C-x 2 and C-x 3, Dave Abrahams, 2011/10/28
- Re: C-x 2 and C-x 3, Juri Linkov, 2011/10/28
- Re: C-x 2 and C-x 3, Chong Yidong, 2011/10/28
- Re: C-x 2 and C-x 3, Tim Cross, 2011/10/28
Re: C-x 2 and C-x 3, Barry Warsaw, 2011/10/26