[Top][All Lists]

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

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

From: Eli Zaretskii
Subject: Re: describe-bindings: ^L, bad order, naming
Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2005 06:40:05 +0200

> Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2005 09:10:42 +0900
> From: Miles Bader <address@hidden>
> Cc: Eli Zaretskii <address@hidden>, address@hidden, address@hidden
> 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.

I still didn't see any real objections to mention "keyboard shortcuts"
in the help message for that menu item.  Anyone?  Or should I go out
and do that now?

reply via email to

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