[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: C-x 2 and C-x 3
From: |
martin rudalics |
Subject: |
Re: C-x 2 and C-x 3 |
Date: |
Wed, 26 Oct 2011 11:22:18 +0200 |
User-agent: |
Thunderbird 2.0.0.21 (Windows/20090302) |
> split-window-above-each-other -> C-x 2
> split-window-side-by-side -> C-x 3
>
> for which split-window-{vertically|horizontally} are now aliases.
>
> I don't mind the attempt to address the vertical/horizontal ambiguity,
> but the new names aren't ungrammatical.
^^
Wouldn't that be fine ;-)
> In English, "split X above each
> other" sounds like a nonsense phrase, and "split X side by side" isn't
> much better.
>
> How about split-window-by-width or split-window-by-height? Or can
> someone suggest something better?
`new-window-below' and `new-window-on-right'. The "split-" prefix has
purely operational connotation and application programmers as users are
only interested in the state produced but hardly how it was obtained.
martin
Re: C-x 2 and C-x 3, Eli Zaretskii, 2011/10/26
Re: C-x 2 and C-x 3, Ulrich Mueller, 2011/10/26
Re: C-x 2 and C-x 3,
martin rudalics <=
RE: C-x 2 and C-x 3, Drew Adams, 2011/10/29
Re: C-x 2 and C-x 3, Richard Stallman, 2011/10/29
Re: C-x 2 and C-x 3, martin rudalics, 2011/10/30