[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: split-window as a command
From: |
Stephen Berman |
Subject: |
Re: split-window as a command |
Date: |
Sat, 13 Apr 2013 01:31:19 +0200 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.3.50 (gnu/linux) |
On Fri, 12 Apr 2013 19:44:31 +0000 (UTC) Rand <address@hidden> wrote:
> Stephen Berman <stephen.berman <at> gmx.net> writes:
>
>> The doc string of split-window says "Interactively, SIZE is the prefix
>> argument." But in fact, invoking split-window with a prefix argument
>> has no effect, because its interactive spec is "i". Maybe this is just
>> a doc bug, since, when split-window was still a C function, its doc
>> string said "Interactively, all arguments are nil." But I don't see why
>> it is a command at all any more: invoked interactively, it has exactly
>> the same effect as invoking split-window-below without a prefix
>> argument, and since the latter does not ignore a prefix argument passed
>> to it, it does more than interactively called split-window. So it
>> appears to be superfluous for split-window to be a command. Or am I
>> overlooking something?
>
> It may be superfluous but it has always been a command and
> removing the interactive form would break existing keybindings
> and usage.
Maybe in the early days there was no split-window-vertically and
split-window was the only window-splitting command (I don't know). But
at least since 18.59 (probably earlier) split-window has been redundant
as a command (and not documented in the Emacs manual), and has not had a
default key binding. So any breakage would be in user settings or
third-party packages. And the fix would simply be to add "-below" to
such occurrences of "split-window", which doesn't seem like much of a
hardship. As for usage, since split-window never acted on a prefix
argument, replacing it with split-window-below interactively instead can
only be a win.
> I think that:
>
> * Fixing the doc-string would be better than removing the
> interactive form.
That would perpetuate its mistaken current status as a command.
> * Changing the interactive form to use the prefix argument would
> be better than fixing the doc-string.
That would mean adding code from split-window-below to process the
prefix argument, though split-window-below itself calls split-window.
That doesn't seem very clean.
It would be nice if there were a make-obsolete-command function, so
invoking split-window would warn: "This function is obsolete as a
command since 24.4; use `split-window-below' instead.
Steve Berman
- split-window as a command, Stephen Berman, 2013/04/12
- Re: split-window as a command, martin rudalics, 2013/04/12
- Re: split-window as a command, Stephen Berman, 2013/04/12
- Re: split-window as a command, martin rudalics, 2013/04/12
- Re: split-window as a command, Rand, 2013/04/12
- Re: split-window as a command, Xue Fuqiao, 2013/04/12
- Re: split-window as a command,
Stephen Berman <=
- Re: split-window as a command, Xue Fuqiao, 2013/04/12
- Re: split-window as a command, Rand User, 2013/04/12
- Re: split-window as a command, Xue Fuqiao, 2013/04/12
- Re: split-window as a command, Rand User, 2013/04/13
- Re: split-window as a command, Xue Fuqiao, 2013/04/13
- Re: split-window as a command, Rand User, 2013/04/12
- Re: split-window as a command, martin rudalics, 2013/04/13
- Re: split-window as a command, Stefan Monnier, 2013/04/12
- Re: split-window as a command, Stephen Berman, 2013/04/13