[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: basic question: going back to dired

From: Lennart Borgman (gmail)
Subject: Re: basic question: going back to dired
Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2008 14:52:14 +0200
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv: Gecko/20071031 Thunderbird/ Mnenhy/

Miles Bader wrote:
"Juanma Barranquero" <address@hidden> writes:
And why should "shortcut" be more fitting than "keybinding"?
I don't know. I'm not even defending the idea that "shortcut" is more
fitting. If anything, I'm defending the idea that "keybinding" is not
very good, not because of any intrinsic quality or defect of the term

It's not that "keybinding" is somehow extra good, it's that "shortcut"
is unusually bad.

The name "shortcut" in most apps carries the implication that it's
somehow an unusual method of invoking something, which is only used in
rare circumstances for the absolute most heavily used commands (in these
apps, the "usual" method is a menu entry).  This is not true in emacs --
keybindings are heavily used, and are "normal".

Yes, the definition of "key binding" in Emacs is in itself quite good, but that does not help new users that are used to the word "shortcut" for similar things in other programs.

At least it did not help me.

reply via email to

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