Re: basic question: going back to dired

[Lennart Borgman (gmail)]

Miles Bader wrote:
> "Juanma Barranquero" <lekktu@gmail.com> writes:
> > > And why should "shortcut" be more fitting than "keybinding"?
> > I don't know. I'm not even defending the idea that "shortcut" is more
> > fitting. If anything, I'm defending the idea that "keybinding" is not
> > very good, not because of any intrinsic quality or defect of the term
> > "keybinding"
>
> It's not that "keybinding" is somehow extra good, it's that "shortcut"
> is unusually bad.
>
> The name "shortcut" in most apps carries the implication that it's
> somehow an unusual method of invoking something, which is only used in
> rare circumstances for the absolute most heavily used commands (in these
> apps, the "usual" method is a menu entry).  This is not true in emacs --
> keybindings are heavily used, and are "normal".

Yes, the definition of "key binding" in Emacs is in itself quite good, 
but that does not help new users that are used to the word "shortcut" 
for similar things in other programs.

At least it did not help me.