[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: C-x 2 and C-x 3
From: |
Barry Warsaw |
Subject: |
Re: C-x 2 and C-x 3 |
Date: |
Wed, 26 Oct 2011 11:36:55 -0400 |
On Oct 26, 2011, at 10:30 AM, 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?
How about:
split-window-by-drawing-along-a-line-from-east-to-west
split-window-by-drawing-along-a-line-from-north-to-south
:)
-Barry
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
- Re: C-x 2 and C-x 3, (continued)
- Re: C-x 2 and C-x 3, John Yates, 2011/10/27
- Re: C-x 2 and C-x 3, Stephen J. Turnbull, 2011/10/28
- Re: C-x 2 and C-x 3, Dave Abrahams, 2011/10/28
- Re: C-x 2 and C-x 3, Juri Linkov, 2011/10/28
- Re: C-x 2 and C-x 3, Chong Yidong, 2011/10/28
- Re: C-x 2 and C-x 3, Tim Cross, 2011/10/28
Re: C-x 2 and C-x 3,
Barry Warsaw <=
What is ISO? (was: C-x 2 and C-x 3), Juri Linkov, 2011/10/28