[Top][All Lists]

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

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

From: Miles Bader
Subject: Re: describe-bindings: ^L, bad order, naming
Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2005 09:10:42 +0900

2005/11/14, David Reitter <address@hidden>:
> It's the concept that counts, and none of the merit is taken away
> from Emacs if the term denotating the concept changes.

No of course not.  But the name shortcuts is misleading, a bit ugly,
and annoying for Emacs veterans (because it drops a familar term for
something that's not particularly nice); morever it hasn't been shown
to be so newbie unfriendly as to warrant _that_ much concern

There can be aids to understanding (entries in the glossary etc,
tweaks here and there) but I think it's pretty clear that Emacs is
_not_ going to adopt the term "shortcuts".

"Bindings" may not the most popular term (and GNU is not the most
popular OS), but it's certainly good enough.

Do not taunt Happy Fun Ball.

reply via email to

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