[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: C-x 2 and C-x 3
From: |
Juri Linkov |
Subject: |
Re: C-x 2 and C-x 3 |
Date: |
Thu, 27 Oct 2011 09:33:15 +0300 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.0.90 (x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) |
> Looking at 'split-window', its argument names and documentation should be
> changed accordingly (right now it's using the horizontal concept). The optimal
> would probably be to pass a symbol to a `where-new' argument (e.g., 'bottom,
> 'right, etc), but that might just be too disruptive on current code (unless
> some
> backwards-compatible argument parsing code was also present).
Your version of `split-window' is outdated. The latest version is:
(split-window &optional WINDOW SIZE SIDE)
...
Optional third argument SIDE nil (or `below') specifies that the
new window shall be located below WINDOW. SIDE `above' means the
new window shall be located above WINDOW.
...
SIDE t (or `right') specifies that the new window shall be
located on the right side of WINDOW. SIDE `left' means the new
window shall be located on the left of WINDOW.
So the most logical would be to name split functions by adding the
`SIDE' argument to the existing base function name using a template
"split-window-<SIDE>" thus creating new names (like Stefan already suggested):
split-window-below
split-window-above
split-window-right
split-window-left
- Re: C-x 2 and C-x 3, (continued)
Re: C-x 2 and C-x 3, Stefan Monnier, 2011/10/29
Re: C-x 2 and C-x 3, anerbenartzi, 2011/10/26
Re: C-x 2 and C-x 3, anerbenartzi, 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, Stefan Monnier, 2011/10/26
- Re: C-x 2 and C-x 3, Lluís, 2011/10/26
- Re: C-x 2 and C-x 3,
Juri Linkov <=
- Re: C-x 2 and C-x 3, Lluís, 2011/10/27
- RE: C-x 2 and C-x 3, Drew Adams, 2011/10/27
- Re: C-x 2 and C-x 3, Jambunathan K, 2011/10/27
- RE: C-x 2 and C-x 3, Drew Adams, 2011/10/27
- Re: C-x 2 and C-x 3, Stephen J. Turnbull, 2011/10/27
- RE: C-x 2 and C-x 3, Drew Adams, 2011/10/27
- Re: C-x 2 and C-x 3, Alan Mackenzie, 2011/10/27
- Re: C-x 2 and C-x 3, Jambunathan K, 2011/10/27
- Re: C-x 2 and C-x 3, Lennart Borgman, 2011/10/27
- Re: C-x 2 and C-x 3, Jambunathan K, 2011/10/27