From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Dani Moncayo Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Proposal to improve the nomenclature of scrolling directions Date: Sun, 4 Nov 2012 16:00:34 +0100 Message-ID: References: NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1352041239 16010 80.91.229.3 (4 Nov 2012 15:00:39 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 4 Nov 2012 15:00:39 +0000 (UTC) Cc: Emacs development discussions To: Stefan Monnier Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sun Nov 04 16:00:48 2012 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1TV1gu-0002gQ-FI for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sun, 04 Nov 2012 16:00:48 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:60162 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1TV1gl-00026n-Rx for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sun, 04 Nov 2012 10:00:39 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:57145) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1TV1gi-00026T-NI for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 04 Nov 2012 10:00:37 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1TV1gh-0004X3-Pl for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 04 Nov 2012 10:00:36 -0500 Original-Received: from mail-oa0-f41.google.com ([209.85.219.41]:54819) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1TV1gh-0004Wr-Ke for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 04 Nov 2012 10:00:35 -0500 Original-Received: by mail-oa0-f41.google.com with SMTP id k14so5582201oag.0 for ; Sun, 04 Nov 2012 07:00:34 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=sllXhvvdsH5FbahktPPBgpdJTQPC/Y43j0Uh8yZHSss=; b=yYrOIOIPY76i22YDVlo0YL4VwE3up+XCNBFuWE4eDyDkzHV4dBe1QfUb5XrEgCXD0F T1l9Y8eE60k300fo4BHz5rKDOL2cV+Surx+b1P/3WHRJEK9gcM28mS0jVqu4aheZ2zSo MCav0NfFQK57GlnJ6bNcnzP2SSNN2C7GOT/jjZFxx7nf7EJXA3W8B5m+wJVAAChX9Q0B B9FywFQo2wyRvaOXxgbat6sIWxtCqXTM9w7uGr6Lw6EXN2wpa7o0u/PGwr/vf3J9SvRN +sKewExvzEM33WBfrohPikxt4e/Hl8DyKKAbZEC2QcQnweyXvTT/Btzyht53fZIGscGj gFBQ== Original-Received: by 10.182.78.137 with SMTP id b9mr5799126obx.94.1352041234880; Sun, 04 Nov 2012 07:00:34 -0800 (PST) Original-Received: by 10.60.131.168 with HTTP; Sun, 4 Nov 2012 07:00:34 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 3.x [fuzzy] X-Received-From: 209.85.219.41 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:154661 Archived-At: On Sun, Nov 4, 2012 at 3:37 PM, Stefan Monnier wrote: >> (a) They are ambiguous: here we are talking about _vertical_ >> scrolling, and "forward"/"backward" could refer to horizontal >> scrolling too. > > We could fix that by explicitly mentioning it's vertical scrolling. Yes, but I guess we all agree that "up" is a cleaner, shorter and thus better name than "vertical backward". >> (b) They take the opposite criterion: while "up"/"down" refer to the >> movement of the text (relative to the window), "forward"/"backward" >> refer to the movement of the window (relative to the text). So we end >> up with a confusing mix of criteria. > > That's also a problem in your proposal. I don't think so: my proposal implies to use a single criterion: the standard one that describes the movement of the window (view port), relative to the text. >> 1. Rename the command `scroll-up' to `scroll-window-down' (an > > While you can argue it's less ambiguous, you have to think about it > to remove the various ambiguities (e.g. you have think about it before > determining that it probably doesn't mean "scroll-window- as opposed to > scroll-frame-"). Mmmm, well, then maybe "scroll-view-" would be even better than "scroll-window-". > The up/down terminology is just to be avoided, I think. Much clearer is > terminology that refers to the beginning/end of the text. I disagree: IMHO, the words that best describe the direction of a _vertical_ movement are precisely "up" and "down", and are they are used elsewhere for this very purpose. -- Dani Moncayo