From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: David De La Harpe Golden Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: C-x 2 and C-x 3 Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2011 14:38:08 +0100 Message-ID: <4EA80D40.8070104@harpegolden.net> References: <87wrbs5vsx.fsf@gnu.org> <8139egbc9l.fsf@gmail.com> <8162jc7xy2.fsf@gmail.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1319636313 25447 80.91.229.12 (26 Oct 2011 13:38:33 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2011 13:38:33 +0000 (UTC) To: emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Wed Oct 26 15:38:29 2011 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([140.186.70.17]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1RJ3ga-0006Zk-V2 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 26 Oct 2011 15:38:29 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:59863 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RJ3ga-0005Pb-8L for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 26 Oct 2011 09:38:28 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.92]:44320) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RJ3gT-0005PK-2V for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 26 Oct 2011 09:38:26 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RJ3gJ-0007IX-GZ for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 26 Oct 2011 09:38:21 -0400 Original-Received: from harpegolden.net ([65.99.215.13]:53771) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RJ3gJ-0007IP-Da for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 26 Oct 2011 09:38:11 -0400 Original-Received: from [87.198.47.56] (87-198-47-56.ptr.magnet.ie [87.198.47.56]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "David De La Harpe Golden", Issuer "David De La Harpe Golden Personal CA rev 3" (verified OK)) by harpegolden.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 1BE49683A2 for ; Wed, 26 Oct 2011 14:38:09 +0100 (IST) User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.2.23) Gecko/20111010 Icedove/3.1.15 In-Reply-To: X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 3) X-Received-From: 65.99.215.13 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:145568 Archived-At: On 26/10/11 13:20, Lennart Borgman wrote: > On Wed, Oct 26, 2011 at 14:13, Jambunathan K wrote: >> Jambunathan K writes: >> >>>> Martin recently introduced the command names >>>> >>>> split-window-above-each-other -> C-x 2 >>>> split-window-side-by-side -> C-x 3 > > Why do we need new names? Are not those introduced by Martin very > clear and good? > "side-by-side" isn't so bad I suppose, but "above eachother" just doesn't make sense. "above eachother": window A above window B AND window B above window A. Contrast "one above the other" - makes sense, and is fairly idiomatic english (e.g. [1]), even if a bit of a mouthful. My unicode joking aside, I tend to think "horizontally" and "vertically" were fairly okay, myself, shrug, ambiguity really only impacts people using them programmatically, otherwise just learn C-x 2 splits one way and C-x 3 the other... [1] "In a biplane aircraft, two wings are placed one above the other." http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Biplane&oldid=455613016