[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: display.texi: (<line>,<col>) isn't documented.

From: Juanma Barranquero
Subject: Re: display.texi: (<line>,<col>) isn't documented.
Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2007 17:35:56 +0200

On 6/7/07, Drew Adams <address@hidden> wrote:

How about:

 column only   -   67x
 line only     -   234y
 line & column -   67x234y

Please, don't.


. Few characters (no wasted space).

More than 234:67

. It's clear which is horizontal and which is vertical.

Only if you know the (x,y) terminology (i.e.,
technically/scientifically oriented people).

. x and y are much more universal than L for "line"
  and C for "column". No need to translate.

I'm not going to defend L and C, but Emacs buffers have rows (lines)
and columns, not x and y coordinates.

. Lowercase makes the units stand out from the digits.
  The descender on the `y' makes it easy to spot and
  disambiguate. (compared with L,C - and l,c suffers
  from confusing l with 1)

My brain has no trouble parsing 234,67 or 234/67 or 234:67, but
67x234y is just a clump.

Disadvantages of other proposals:

. (34,67) and 34:67 are not clear about which is
  horizontal and which is vertical.

No, but many files have much more lines than columns, and it's really
just a convention. Once you've used it for a while, it's automatic.

. :67 and 234: take longer to parse, to figure out
  which is horizontal (vs 67x and 234y).

In some universe tangent to mine, surely :)

(BTW, very funny: with a Unicode font you could use U+2192 and U+2193
or some other suitable pointing-looking characters :)

. Using (234,67) for both horizontal and vertical, but 234L
  and 67C for one only is more complex, less consistent.



reply via email to

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