[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: describe-bindings: ^L, bad order, naming

From: Kim F. Storm
Subject: Re: describe-bindings: ^L, bad order, naming
Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2005 10:18:16 +0100
User-agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.0.50 (gnu/linux)

Miles Bader <address@hidden> writes:

> 2005/11/11, Robert J. Chassell <address@hidden>:
>>    I would go for just "Keyboard Shortcuts".
>> But that is inaccurate!  They are certainly not shortcuts!  You have
>> to type them!  Perhaps compared to something you type, voice
>> recognition would provide `shortcuts', until voice recognition became
>> common.
> I presume the use of "shortcut" in other programs reflects the notion
> that the menu-item is the "primary" method of invocation, and that any
> keybindings are for the use of experts.

Well I don't think this is silly.

In emacs a "keyboard shortcut" could reflect the notion that without
it, you would have to use M-x and spell out the full command name.

E.g. C-x 4 C-f is a shortcut for M-x find-file-other-window RET.

> A phrase like "Keyboard Commands" might be more familar than
> "bindings", without the objectional implication of "shortcuts".

IMO, if we don't like "shortcut", we should stick to the term we
already use (bindings) rather than invent yet another term.

Kim F. Storm <address@hidden> http://www.cua.dk

reply via email to

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