help-gnu-emacs
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: basic question: going back to dired


From: Phil Carmody
Subject: Re: basic question: going back to dired
Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2008 12:46:44 +0300
User-agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.2 (gnu/linux)

Xah <address@hidden> writes:
> I don't think its a good idea to teach or insist that people adopt
> emacs's terminologies.

When discussing emacs? That's a rather bizarre thing to say.

> In particular, the term buffer is unsuitable and outdated. See the
> following argument:
>
> ----------------------------
>
> Q: The Terminology “buffer” and “keybinding” is good as they are.
>
> A:
> The terminology “buffer” or “keybinding”, are technical terms having
> to do with software programing. The term “keybinding” refers to the
> association of a keystroke with a command in a technical, software
> application programing context. That is to say, a programer “bind” a
> keystroke event to a command in a software application. The term
> “buffer” refers to a abstract, temporary area for storing data, in the
> context of programing or computer science.
>
> These terms are irrelevant to the users of a software application.

Blatant assertion I disagree with completely.

> As a user of a text editor, he works with files. 

Blatant assertion I disagree with completely. As a user of a text 
editor, I work with text. And I want it neatly buffered for me.
I may occasionally load some of the text from a file, and I may 
occasionally save some of the text to a file, but the majority
of the buffers that I use never undergo either.

[SNIP - stuff I presume is either predicated upon your prior
unacceptable assertions, or introducing new ones.]

Phil
-- 
Dear aunt, let's set so double the killer delete select all.
-- Microsoft voice recognition live demonstration


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]