[Top][All Lists]

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

RE: C-x 2 and C-x 3

From: Drew Adams
Subject: RE: C-x 2 and C-x 3
Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2011 07:58:35 -0700

> I tend to think "horizontally" and "vertically" were fairly okay,
> myself, shrug, ambiguity really only impacts people 
> using them programmatically, otherwise just learn C-x 2 
> splits one way and C-x 3 the other...

I agree.  The doc is more important than the command names.
If the doc is clear then users can understand easily.

Similarly, for things like `scroll-up-command', the _key_ (`next', aka PageDown)
is more important than the command name.  Users are often unaware of the command
that is bound to `next'; they just learn that that key scrolls the window down
(and the buffer up).

That said, it seems that which window is the new one or the selected one has
become (more?)important now.  If so, then this approach (from Anerbenartzi) is
on the right track:

> split-window-new-on-right, split-window-new-on-bottom

But if we really care about the selected window or which one is new, then we
probably should not speak anymore in terms of the action as "splitting" a window
but rather as "copying" a window, to the right, below, or whatever:

`copy-window-to-right', `copy-window-below'

It's not just a `new-window-to-right' or `below'.  The new window shows the same
buffer.  It is essentially a window copy.

reply via email to

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