[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: |
Fri, 28 Oct 2011 09:32:30 +0300 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.0.90 (x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) |
> When you copy a file in Dired, you don't think in terms of "splitting" the
> file.
> Yes, copying a window means that some other window will be smaller, and in
> that
> sense "split" has some mileage. But the confusion around "splitting" isn't
> worth it, and "copy" lets you know that the new window is not just new, it's a
> copy of the selected window (same buffer).
I have no opinion about renaming `split-window' to something else.
Since the original problem was not about renaming the function name
prefix `split-window-', but about the ambiguity of the old function
name suffixes `-horizontally' and `-vertically' and ungrammatical new
suffixes `-above-each-other' and `-side-by-side', it should be noted that
for consistency with the current definition of `split-window'
and its `SIDE' argument, the equivalent names are:
(split-window nil nil 'below) <=> (split-window-below)
(split-window nil nil 'above) <=> (split-window-above)
(split-window nil nil 'right) <=> (split-window-right)
(split-window nil nil 'left) <=> (split-window-left)
- Re: C-x 2 and C-x 3, (continued)
- 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
- Re: C-x 2 and C-x 3, Thien-Thi Nguyen, 2011/10/27
- 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 <=
- 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, 2011/10/26