[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: C-x 2 and C-x 3
|
From: |
martin rudalics |
|
Subject: |
Re: C-x 2 and C-x 3 |
|
Date: |
Sat, 29 Oct 2011 12:27:42 +0200 |
|
User-agent: |
Thunderbird 2.0.0.21 (Windows/20090302) |
> The split-window terminology is too widely used for this. We have tons
> of functions and variables named `split-{height|width}-threshold',
> `split-window-sensibly', `split-window', `window-splittable-p',
> etc. etc. So I don't think it would be wise to give C-x 2 and C-x 3
> anything other than names of the form split-window-FOO.
`split-window' should be renamed to `make-window'. The others relate
exclusively to the buffer display functions so the "split-" references
are misleading anyway.
martin
- Re: C-x 2 and C-x 3, (continued)
Re: C-x 2 and C-x 3, martin rudalics, 2011/10/26
RE: C-x 2 and C-x 3, Drew Adams, 2011/10/29
Re: C-x 2 and C-x 3, Richard Stallman, 2011/10/29
Re: C-x 2 and C-x 3, martin rudalics, 2011/10/30
Re: C-x 2 and C-x 3, Richard Stallman, 2011/10/30
Re: C-x 2 and C-x 3, Stefan Monnier, 2011/10/29
Re: C-x 2 and C-x 3, anerbenartzi, 2011/10/26
Re: C-x 2 and C-x 3, anerbenartzi, 2011/10/26
Re: C-x 2 and C-x 3, David De La Harpe Golden, 2011/10/26