[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: C-x 2 and C-x 3
From: |
Ulrich Mueller |
Subject: |
Re: C-x 2 and C-x 3 |
Date: |
Wed, 26 Oct 2011 10:41:13 +0200 |
>>>>> On Wed, 26 Oct 2011, Chong Yidong wrote:
> Martin recently introduced the command names
> 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. 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?
Sorry, but may I ask what is the problem with the traditional names of
these commands?
They seem to fit well into the systematics of other commands like
mouse-split-window-{horizontally,vertically} and
{enlarge,shrink}-window-horizontally. Or is the plan to rename all
of them?
Ulrich
- Re: C-x 2 and C-x 3, (continued)
- 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, 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, 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 <=
Re: C-x 2 and C-x 3, martin rudalics, 2011/10/26