[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: C-x 2 and C-x 3
|
From: |
Tim Cross |
|
Subject: |
Re: C-x 2 and C-x 3 |
|
Date: |
Sat, 29 Oct 2011 11:56:11 +1100 |
On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 2:03 AM, Chong Yidong <address@hidden> wrote:
> Stefan Monnier <address@hidden> writes:
>
>> So maybe split-window-bottom and split-window-right.
>
> This seems like the most reasonable of the suggested choices, though I
> think split-window-below sounds better than split-window-bottom.
>
>
Suggestion from a friend, just in case it helps
(split-window-x-axis)
(split-window-y-axis)
Tim
--
Tim Cross
- Re: C-x 2 and C-x 3, (continued)
- 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, 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 <=
Re: C-x 2 and C-x 3, Barry Warsaw, 2011/10/26
What is ISO? (was: C-x 2 and C-x 3), Juri Linkov, 2011/10/28