[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 08:20:44 -0700 |
> > I agree. The doc is more important than the command names.
> > If the doc is clear then users can understand easily.
>
> I doubt that it is about understanding. Rather remembering ... ;-)
It is not about remembering the command names, because you do not invoke these
commands using `M-x'.
Better _command_ names do not help you remember which _key_ is which. (I agreed
with DDLHG that you "just learn C-x 2 splits one way and C-x 3 the other.")
That's why I added the example of `scroll-up-command', where, unlike `C-x 2|3',
the key _can_ be mnemonic. (`C-x 2' is mnemonic only wrt the action of
"splitting" (presumably the rationale), but that's all.)
For commands that are generally invoked by keys, easy-to-remember keys are more
important than accurate command names, and most important for such keys is the
_doc_ (`C-h k'). If the doc leaves you wondering which way is up then it isn't
helpful enough.
- Re: C-x 2 and C-x 3, (continued)
- Re: C-x 2 and C-x 3, Jambunathan K, 2011/10/26
- Re: C-x 2 and C-x 3, Lennart Borgman, 2011/10/26
- Re: C-x 2 and C-x 3, David De La Harpe Golden, 2011/10/26
- Re: C-x 2 and C-x 3, Lennart Borgman, 2011/10/26
- Re: C-x 2 and C-x 3, Deniz Dogan, 2011/10/26
- Re: C-x 2 and C-x 3, David De La Harpe Golden, 2011/10/26
- Re: C-x 2 and C-x 3, Juri Linkov, 2011/10/27
- RE: C-x 2 and C-x 3, Drew Adams, 2011/10/26
- Re: C-x 2 and C-x 3, Lennart Borgman, 2011/10/26
- RE: C-x 2 and C-x 3,
Drew Adams <=
- Re: C-x 2 and C-x 3, David De La Harpe Golden, 2011/10/26
- Re: C-x 2 and C-x 3, Dave Abrahams, 2011/10/26
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, 2011/10/26