C-x 2 and C-x 3

C-x 2 and C-x 3

[Chong Yidong]

Martin recently introduced the command names

  split-window-above-each-other -> C-x 2
  split-window-side-by-side     -> C-x 3

for which split-window-{vertically|horizontally} are now aliases.

I don't mind the attempt to address the vertical/horizontal ambiguity,
but the new names aren't ungrammatical.  In English, "split X above each
other" sounds like a nonsense phrase, and "split X side by side" isn't
much better.

How about split-window-by-width or split-window-by-height?  Or can
someone suggest something better?

Re: C-x 2 and C-x 3

[Evil Boris]

Chong Yidong <cyd@gnu.org> writes:

> Martin recently introduced the command names
>
>   split-window-above-each-other -> C-x 2
>   split-window-side-by-side     -> C-x 3
>
> for which split-window-{vertically|horizontally} are now aliases.
>
> I don't mind the attempt to address the vertical/horizontal ambiguity,
> but the new names aren't ungrammatical.  In English, "split X above each
> other" sounds like a nonsense phrase, and "split X side by side" isn't
> much better.
>
> How about split-window-by-width or split-window-by-height?  Or can
> someone suggest something better?

How about split-window-into-left-right and split-window-into-top-bottom?

or ... -left-and-right and -top-and-bottom ... ?

I suppose split-the-current-window-into-a-left-window-and-a-right-window
would be a bit wordy.

--B

Re: C-x 2 and C-x 3

[Jambunathan K]

> Martin recently introduced the command names
>
>   split-window-above-each-other -> C-x 2
>   split-window-side-by-side     -> C-x 3
>
> for which split-window-{vertically|horizontally} are now aliases.

How about:

split-window-and-stack-horizontally
split-window-and-stack-vertically

or

split-window-and-arrange-horizontally
split-window-and-arrange-vertically

-- 

Re: C-x 2 and C-x 3

[Tim Cross]

On Wed, Oct 26, 2011 at 3:35 PM, Jambunathan K <kjambunathan@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Martin recently introduced the command names
>>
>>   split-window-above-each-other -> C-x 2
>>   split-window-side-by-side     -> C-x 3
>>
>> for which split-window-{vertically|horizontally} are now aliases.
>
> How about:
>
> split-window-and-stack-horizontally
> split-window-and-stack-vertically
>
> or
>
> split-window-and-arrange-horizontally
> split-window-and-arrange-vertically
>

split-window-left-right
split-window-top-bottom

-- 
Tim Cross

Re: C-x 2 and C-x 3

[Deniz Dogan]

On 2011-10-26 07:38, Tim Cross wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 26, 2011 at 3:35 PM, Jambunathan K<kjambunathan@gmail.com>  wrote:
>>
>>> Martin recently introduced the command names
>>>
>>>    split-window-above-each-other ->  C-x 2
>>>    split-window-side-by-side     ->  C-x 3
>>>
>>> for which split-window-{vertically|horizontally} are now aliases.
>>
>> How about:
>>
>> split-window-and-stack-horizontally
>> split-window-and-stack-vertically
>>
>> or
>>
>> split-window-and-arrange-horizontally
>> split-window-and-arrange-vertically
>>
>
> split-window-left-right
> split-window-top-bottom
>

I support this suggestion.

Re: C-x 2 and C-x 3

[Richard Stallman]

    > split-window-left-right
    > split-window-top-bottom

Those seem good.

-- 
Dr Richard Stallman
President, Free Software Foundation
51 Franklin St
Boston MA 02110
USA
www.fsf.org  www.gnu.org
Skype: No way! That's nonfree (freedom-denying) software.
  Use free telephony http://directory.fsf.org/category/tel/

Re: C-x 2 and C-x 3

[Andreas Röhler]

Am 26.10.2011 07:38, schrieb Tim Cross:
> On Wed, Oct 26, 2011 at 3:35 PM, Jambunathan K<kjambunathan@gmail.com>  wrote:
>>
>>> Martin recently introduced the command names
>>>
>>>    split-window-above-each-other ->  C-x 2
>>>    split-window-side-by-side     ->  C-x 3
>>>
>>> for which split-window-{vertically|horizontally} are now aliases.
>>
>> How about:
>>
>> split-window-and-stack-horizontally
>> split-window-and-stack-vertically
>>
>> or
>>
>> split-window-and-arrange-horizontally
>> split-window-and-arrange-vertically
>>
>
> split-window-left-right
> split-window-top-bottom
>

+1

whilst I rather kept the old forms as are, introducing the new as aliases

Cheers,

Andreas

Re: C-x 2 and C-x 3

[Deniz Dogan]

On 2011-10-26 21:19, Andreas Röhler wrote:
> Am 26.10.2011 07:38, schrieb Tim Cross:
> > split-window-left-right
>> split-window-top-bottom
>>
>
> +1
>
> whilst I rather kept the old forms as are, introducing the new as aliases
>

Why?

Re: C-x 2 and C-x 3

[Andreas Röhler]

Am 26.10.2011 21:40, schrieb Deniz Dogan:
> On 2011-10-26 21:19, Andreas Röhler wrote:
>> Am 26.10.2011 07:38, schrieb Tim Cross:
>> > split-window-left-right
>>> split-window-top-bottom
>>>
>>
>> +1
>>
>> whilst I rather kept the old forms as are, introducing the new as aliases
>>
>
> Why?
>
>
>

less code change

Re: C-x 2 and C-x 3

[Jambunathan K]

Jambunathan K <kjambunathan@gmail.com> writes:

>> Martin recently introduced the command names
>>
>>   split-window-above-each-other -> C-x 2
>>   split-window-side-by-side     -> C-x 3
>>
>> for which split-window-{vertically|horizontally} are now aliases.
>
> How about:
>
> split-window-and-stack-horizontally
> split-window-and-stack-vertically
>
> or
>
> split-window-and-arrange-horizontally
> split-window-and-arrange-vertically

I like Tim's suggestion.

Another variation of my earlier suggestion would be

split-window-and-tile-horizontally
split-window-and-tile-vertically

Since windows are always tiled but never stacked or arranged, so to
speak.

-- 

Re: C-x 2 and C-x 3

[Lennart Borgman]

On Wed, Oct 26, 2011 at 14:13, Jambunathan K <kjambunathan@gmail.com> wrote:
> Jambunathan K <kjambunathan@gmail.com> writes:
>
>>> Martin recently introduced the command names
>>>
>>>   split-window-above-each-other -> C-x 2
>>>   split-window-side-by-side     -> C-x 3
>>>
>>> for which split-window-{vertically|horizontally} are now aliases.
>>
>> How about:
>>
>> split-window-and-stack-horizontally
>> split-window-and-stack-vertically
>>
>> or
>>
>> split-window-and-arrange-horizontally
>> split-window-and-arrange-vertically
>
> I like Tim's suggestion.
>
> Another variation of my earlier suggestion would be
>
> split-window-and-tile-horizontally
> split-window-and-tile-vertically
>
> Since windows are always tiled but never stacked or arranged, so to
> speak.

Why do we need new names? Are not those introduced by Martin very
clear and good?

Re: C-x 2 and C-x 3

[David De La Harpe Golden]

On 26/10/11 13:20, Lennart Borgman wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 26, 2011 at 14:13, Jambunathan K<kjambunathan@gmail.com>  wrote:
>> Jambunathan K<kjambunathan@gmail.com>  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

Re: C-x 2 and C-x 3

[Lennart Borgman]

On Wed, Oct 26, 2011 at 15:38, David De La Harpe Golden
<david@harpegolden.net> wrote:
> On 26/10/11 13:20, Lennart Borgman wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Oct 26, 2011 at 14:13, Jambunathan K<kjambunathan@gmail.com>
>>  wrote:
>>>
>>> Jambunathan K<kjambunathan@gmail.com>  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.

So then why not just rename it to split-window-one-above-the-other?
(Or something similar.)

Re: C-x 2 and C-x 3

[Deniz Dogan]

On 2011-10-26 15:43, Lennart Borgman wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 26, 2011 at 15:38, David De La Harpe Golden
> <david@harpegolden.net>  wrote:
> > Contrast "one above the other" - makes sense, and is fairly idiomatic
>> english (e.g. [1]), even if a bit of a mouthful.
>
> So then why not just rename it to split-window-one-above-the-other?
> (Or something similar.)
>

That's what we're discussing.

Re: C-x 2 and C-x 3

[David De La Harpe Golden]

On 26/10/11 14:43, Lennart Borgman wrote:
> ;-)

Ah.

> (e.g. [1]), even if a bit of a mouthful.

or in fact e.g. the first line of the function's doc,
"Split selected window into two windows, one above the other."

Re: C-x 2 and C-x 3

[Juri Linkov]

>> Contrast "one above the other" - makes sense, and is fairly idiomatic
>> english (e.g. [1]), even if a bit of a mouthful.
>
> So then why not just rename it to split-window-one-above-the-other?

Because then more correct would be `split-window-one-below-the-other'
since the new window is below.  But it's still ugly.

RE: C-x 2 and C-x 3

[Drew Adams]

> 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...

I agree.  The doc is more important than the command names.
If the doc is clear then users can understand easily.

Similarly, for things like `scroll-up-command', the _key_ (`next', aka PageDown)
is more important than the command name.  Users are often unaware of the command
that is bound to `next'; they just learn that that key scrolls the window down
(and the buffer up).

That said, it seems that which window is the new one or the selected one has
become (more?)important now.  If so, then this approach (from Anerbenartzi) is
on the right track:

> split-window-new-on-right, split-window-new-on-bottom

But if we really care about the selected window or which one is new, then we
probably should not speak anymore in terms of the action as "splitting" a window
but rather as "copying" a window, to the right, below, or whatever:

`copy-window-to-right', `copy-window-below'

It's not just a `new-window-to-right' or `below'.  The new window shows the same
buffer.  It is essentially a window copy.

Re: C-x 2 and C-x 3

[Lennart Borgman]

On Wed, Oct 26, 2011 at 16:58, Drew Adams <drew.adams@oracle.com> wrote:
>
> I agree.  The doc is more important than the command names.
> If the doc is clear then users can understand easily.

I doubt that it is about understanding. Rather remembering ... ;-)

RE: C-x 2 and C-x 3

[Drew Adams]

> > I agree.  The doc is more important than the command names.
> > If the doc is clear then users can understand easily.
> 
> I doubt that it is about understanding. Rather remembering ... ;-)

It is not about remembering the command names, because you do not invoke these
commands using `M-x'.

Better _command_ names do not help you remember which _key_ is which.  (I agreed
with DDLHG that you "just learn C-x 2 splits one way and C-x 3 the other.")

That's why I added the example of `scroll-up-command', where, unlike `C-x 2|3',
the key _can_ be mnemonic.  (`C-x 2' is mnemonic only wrt the action of
"splitting" (presumably the rationale), but that's all.)

For commands that are generally invoked by keys, easy-to-remember keys are more
important than accurate command names, and most important for such keys is the
_doc_ (`C-h k').  If the doc leaves you wondering which way is up then it isn't
helpful enough.

Re: C-x 2 and C-x 3

[David De La Harpe Golden]

On 26/10/11 15:06, Stefan Monnier wrote:
 > This said, I agree with Michael that it'd be good if the name made it
 > clear which window is the new one

On 26/10/11 15:58, Drew Adams wrote:
> That said, it seems that which window is the new one or the selected one has
> become (more?)important now.    If so,

Hit the nail on the head there. I'm not clear myself why it's now more 
important (and if so, as you say). It kind of seems like an 
implementation detail that the original window survives at all - in a 
different implementation that'd be functionally quite similar to the 
user, post-call _both_ windows could be new "copy" windows in 
object-identity terms, with the space that the original window took up 
now split between them and the selected window now the left or top one 
(Yes, the return value is defined to be "the" new window currently, but 
again, something of an implementation detail...)

If one wanted to hide (at least from the function name) which windows 
are original (if any) and which copies, well,

split-window-side-by-side-with-selected-on-left
split-window-one-above-the-other-with-selected-on-top

or could revert to -horizontally/-vertically, since the -select suffix
also happens to effectively disambiguate:

split-window-horizontally-select-left
split-window-vertically-select-top

(and make
split-window-horizontally-select-right
split-window-vertically-select-bottom
if anyone feels the need or symmetry compulsion)

Re: C-x 2 and C-x 3

[Dave Abrahams]

on Wed Oct 26 2011, Jambunathan K <kjambunathan-AT-gmail.com> wrote:

> Jambunathan K <kjambunathan@gmail.com> writes:
>
>>> Martin recently introduced the command names
>>>
>>>   split-window-above-each-other -> C-x 2
>>>   split-window-side-by-side     -> C-x 3
>>>
>>> for which split-window-{vertically|horizontally} are now aliases.
>>
>> How about:
>>
>> split-window-and-stack-horizontally
>> split-window-and-stack-vertically
>>
>> or
>>
>> split-window-and-arrange-horizontally
>> split-window-and-arrange-vertically
>
> I like Tim's suggestion.
>
> Another variation of my earlier suggestion would be
>
> split-window-and-tile-horizontally
> split-window-and-tile-vertically

+1

Another approach might be to get more specific and say where, relative
to the existing window, the new window will appear:

   create-window-right
   create-window-below

   tile-window-right
   tile-window-below

   subtile-window-right
   subtile-window-below

-- 
Dave Abrahams
BoostPro Computing
http://www.boostpro.com

Re: C-x 2 and C-x 3

[Eli Zaretskii]

> From: Chong Yidong <cyd@gnu.org>
> Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2011 10:30:22 +0800
> 
> How about split-window-by-width or split-window-by-height?

IMO, that's as ambiguous as the original names.

Re: C-x 2 and C-x 3

[Ulrich Mueller]

>>>>> On Wed, 26 Oct 2011, Chong Yidong wrote:

> Martin recently introduced the command names
>   split-window-above-each-other -> C-x 2
>   split-window-side-by-side     -> C-x 3

> for which split-window-{vertically|horizontally} are now aliases.

> I don't mind the attempt to address the vertical/horizontal
> ambiguity, but the new names aren't ungrammatical. In English,
> "split X above each other" sounds like a nonsense phrase, and "split
> X side by side" isn't much better.

> How about split-window-by-width or split-window-by-height?  Or can
> someone suggest something better?

Sorry, but may I ask what is the problem with the traditional names of
these commands?

They seem to fit well into the systematics of other commands like
mouse-split-window-{horizontally,vertically} and
{enlarge,shrink}-window-horizontally. Or is the plan to rename all
of them?

Ulrich

Re: C-x 2 and C-x 3

[martin rudalics]

 > Sorry, but may I ask what is the problem with the traditional names of
 > these commands?

Confusion of operation and state based reasoning.  People adopting the
latter were surprised that a horizontal split would produce a vertical
divider (among them ISTR Glenn Morris, Miles Bader and some people on
help-gnu-emacs).

 > They seem to fit well into the systematics of other commands like
 > mouse-split-window-{horizontally,vertically}

These should be probably renamed as well.

 > and
 > {enlarge,shrink}-window-horizontally.

Resizing is different because action- and state-based reasoning
coincide.

 > Or is the plan to rename all
 > of them?

martin

Re: C-x 2 and C-x 3

[Nix]

On 26 Oct 2011, martin rudalics told this:

>> Sorry, but may I ask what is the problem with the traditional names of
>> these commands?
>
> Confusion of operation and state based reasoning.  People adopting the
> latter were surprised that a horizontal split would produce a vertical
> divider (among them ISTR Glenn Morris, Miles Bader and some people on
> help-gnu-emacs).

Quite. This is the second-most-confusing thing in Emacs: it still
confuses me when I encounter it now, seventeen years after I met it for
the first time. (The most confusing thing in Emacs is the inverted
naming of scroll-{up,down}-command with respect to the modern meanings
of 'scroll up/down', but that is probably not changeable without
breaking the world at this late date.)

-- 
NULL && (void)

Re: C-x 2 and C-x 3

[Ted Zlatanov]

On Wed, 26 Oct 2011 13:20:09 +0100 Nix <nix@esperi.org.uk> wrote: 

N> (The most confusing thing in Emacs is the inverted naming of
N> scroll-{up,down}-command with respect to the modern meanings of
N> 'scroll up/down', but that is probably not changeable without
N> breaking the world at this late date.)

"Modern"?  Mac OS X Lion has reversed up and down scrolling[1], showing
us Emacs was right all along! :)

Ted

[1] yes, it's because of the touch interface, but still...

Re: C-x 2 and C-x 3

[Glenn Morris]

martin rudalics wrote:

> Confusion of operation and state based reasoning.  People adopting the
> latter were surprised that a horizontal split would produce a vertical
> divider (among them ISTR Glenn Morris, Miles Bader and some people on
> help-gnu-emacs).

Yes; for example I would call them split-window-about-vertical-axis and
split-window-about-horizontal-axis, which are "opposite" to the
traditional names.

Re: C-x 2 and C-x 3

[martin rudalics]

 >   split-window-above-each-other -> C-x 2
 >   split-window-side-by-side     -> C-x 3
 >
 > for which split-window-{vertically|horizontally} are now aliases.
 >
 > I don't mind the attempt to address the vertical/horizontal ambiguity,
 > but the new names aren't ungrammatical.
                            ^^
Wouldn't that be fine ;-)

 > In English, "split X above each
 > other" sounds like a nonsense phrase, and "split X side by side" isn't
 > much better.
 >
 > How about split-window-by-width or split-window-by-height?  Or can
 > someone suggest something better?

`new-window-below' and `new-window-on-right'.  The "split-" prefix has
purely operational connotation and application programmers as users are
only interested in the state produced but hardly how it was obtained.

martin

Re: C-x 2 and C-x 3

[Johan Bockgård]

martin rudalics <rudalics@gmx.at> writes:

> `new-window-below' and `new-window-on-right'.  The "split-" prefix has
> purely operational connotation and application programmers as users are
> only interested in the state produced but hardly how it was obtained.
>
> martin

Re: C-x 2 and C-x 3

[Johan Bockgård]

martin rudalics <rudalics@gmx.at> writes:

> `new-window-below' and `new-window-on-right'.  The "split-" prefix has
> purely operational connotation and application programmers as users are
> only interested in the state produced but hardly how it was obtained.
>
> martin

Re: C-x 2 and C-x 3

[Johan Bockgård]

(Sorry about the multiple posts.)

martin rudalics <rudalics@gmx.at> writes:

> `new-window-below' and `new-window-on-right'.  The "split-" prefix has
> purely operational connotation and application programmers as users are
> only interested in the state produced but hardly how it was obtained.

More lispy would be make-window-below etc. (Cf make-frame.)

Re: C-x 2 and C-x 3

[martin rudalics]

> More lispy would be make-window-below etc. (Cf make-frame.)

Yes.  I'd go for that.

martin

Re: C-x 2 and C-x 3

[Chong Yidong]

martin rudalics <rudalics@gmx.at> writes:

>> More lispy would be make-window-below etc. (Cf make-frame.)
>
> Yes.  I'd go for that.

The split-window terminology is too widely used for this.  We have tons
of functions and variables named `split-{height|width}-threshold',
`split-window-sensibly', `split-window', `window-splittable-p',
etc. etc.  So I don't think it would be wise to give C-x 2 and C-x 3
anything other than names of the form split-window-FOO.

Re: C-x 2 and C-x 3

[martin rudalics]

 > The split-window terminology is too widely used for this.  We have tons
 > of functions and variables named `split-{height|width}-threshold',
 > `split-window-sensibly', `split-window', `window-splittable-p',
 > etc. etc.  So I don't think it would be wise to give C-x 2 and C-x 3
 > anything other than names of the form split-window-FOO.

`split-window' should be renamed to `make-window'.  The others relate
exclusively to the buffer display functions so the "split-" references
are misleading anyway.

martin

Re: C-x 2 and C-x 3

[Stefan Monnier]

> `split-window' should be renamed to `make-window'.

I disagree.  `split-window' is a low-level function/command which does
just what its name implies.  That's good.


        Stefan

RE: C-x 2 and C-x 3

[Drew Adams]

> > More lispy would be make-window-below etc. (Cf make-frame.)
> Yes.  I'd go for that.

Yes, I guess `make-frame' does, like `split-window*', use the current buffer, so
that would be consistent.  A good suggestion.  Better than my suggestion of
`copy-window-below' etc., because of this consistency.

1+

Re: C-x 2 and C-x 3

[Richard Stallman]

    > `new-window-below' and `new-window-on-right'.  The "split-" prefix has
    > purely operational connotation and application programmers as users are
    > only interested in the state produced but hardly how it was obtained.

    More lispy would be make-window-below etc. (Cf make-frame.)

`split-' in these command names expresses the fact that the space of
the current window is divided among that window and a new one.

`new-window' doesn't state that, so it is not as clear.
You could imagine that a `new-window' command did something else,
such as make a new window and give it space taken from elsewhere.


-- 
Dr Richard Stallman
President, Free Software Foundation
51 Franklin St
Boston MA 02110
USA
www.fsf.org  www.gnu.org
Skype: No way! That's nonfree (freedom-denying) software.
  Use free telephony http://directory.fsf.org/category/tel/

Re: C-x 2 and C-x 3

[martin rudalics]

> You could imagine that a `new-window' command did something else,
> such as make a new window and give it space taken from elsewhere.

Would that be bad?

martin

Re: C-x 2 and C-x 3

[Richard Stallman]

    > You could imagine that a `new-window' command did something else,
    > such as make a new window and give it space taken from elsewhere.

    Would that be bad?

I don't say it would be bad, only that it is different,
and is not what the existing split-window commands do.

If people have a use for a commands that creates windows
in some manner other than by splitting the selected window,
a name such as `make-window' might fit it.

-- 
Dr Richard Stallman
President, Free Software Foundation
51 Franklin St
Boston MA 02110
USA
www.fsf.org  www.gnu.org
Skype: No way! That's nonfree (freedom-denying) software.
  Use free telephony http://directory.fsf.org/category/tel/

Re: C-x 2 and C-x 3

[Stefan Monnier]

> The "split-" prefix has purely operational connotation and application
> programmers as users are only interested in the state produced but
> hardly how it was obtained.

That's why split-window is much more used as a command than as
a function.  And split-window-below (or whatever name we end up using
for it) is purely a command: Elisp code can just as well use
(split-window nil nil 'below).

Elisp code generally prefers using display-buffer and other functions of
that family.

Most other Elisp code using split-window falls in the category of
Gnus/MPC/GUD/Younameit which want to setup a particular
window-configuration and use split-window because that's the only thing
they have.


        Stefan

Re: C-x 2 and C-x 3

[anerbenartzi]

split-window-top-bottom
split-window-left-right


Chong Yidong wrote:
> 
> Martin recently introduced the command names
> 
>   split-window-above-each-other -> C-x 2
>   split-window-side-by-side     -> C-x 3
> 
> for which split-window-{vertically|horizontally} are now aliases.
> 
> I don't mind the attempt to address the vertical/horizontal ambiguity,
> but the new names aren't ungrammatical.  In English, "split X above each
> other" sounds like a nonsense phrase, and "split X side by side" isn't
> much better.
> 
> How about split-window-by-width or split-window-by-height?  Or can
> someone suggest something better?
> 
> 
> 

-- 
View this message in context: http://old.nabble.com/C-x-2-and-C-x-3-tp32721931p32722888.html
Sent from the Emacs - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

Re: C-x 2 and C-x 3

[anerbenartzi]

Chong Yidong wrote:
> 
> Martin recently introduced the command names
> 
>   split-window-above-each-other -> C-x 2
>   split-window-side-by-side     -> C-x 3
> 
> for which split-window-{vertically|horizontally} are now aliases.
> 
> ...
> 
> How about split-window-by-width or split-window-by-height?  Or can
> someone suggest something better?
> 
> 
> 

The main problem with split-window-(by-height | horizontally | left-right)
is that you don't know if the windows will be arranged/stacked in that
direction, or the split action is being done with a cut in that direction
(which is why Jambunathan introduced the extra 'stacked-by')

To an English speaker, top-bottom/left-right are pretty clear about this,
but there's still room for ambiguity, and maybe more-so in other languages. 
Maybe a more explicit version:

split-window-new-on-right
split-window-new-on-bottom

This also disambiguates where the new vs existing windows will be arranged
(not entirely obvious for languages that write right->left).
-- 
View this message in context: http://old.nabble.com/C-x-2-and-C-x-3-tp32721931p32722940.html
Sent from the Emacs - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

Re: C-x 2 and C-x 3

[martin rudalics]

 > split-window-new-on-right
 > split-window-new-on-bottom
 >
 > This also disambiguates where the new vs existing windows will be arranged
 > (not entirely obvious for languages that write right->left).

If I "write right->left" I don't invert the meaning of the words "left"
and "right".

martin

Re: C-x 2 and C-x 3

[David De La Harpe Golden]

split-window-like-⬓
split-window-like-◨

...or, venturing beyond the plane...

split-window-like-🀱
split-window-like-🁣


Of course inputting them could be irritating...

Re: C-x 2 and C-x 3

[Stefan Monnier]

> split-window-like-🀱
> split-window-like-🁣

I like that ;-)

This said, I agree with Michael that it'd be good if the name made it
clear which window is the new one (I don't care much whether it uses
"split" or not, but at least "split" makes it clear that something
existing will be affected, whereas "new" can make it sound like
existing windows will stay unchanged).

So maybe split-window-bottom and split-window-right.


        Stefan

Re: C-x 2 and C-x 3

[Lluís]

Stefan Monnier writes:

>> split-window-like-🀱
>> split-window-like-🁣

> I like that ;-)

> This said, I agree with Michael that it'd be good if the name made it
> clear which window is the new one (I don't care much whether it uses
> "split" or not, but at least "split" makes it clear that something
> existing will be affected, whereas "new" can make it sound like
> existing windows will stay unchanged).

> So maybe split-window-bottom and split-window-right.

Short and clearer.

Just to add some more noise:

     split-window-new-bottom
     split-window-new-right

so that it's clear that the new window will stay at the bottom of the selected
one (and not the other way around).


Looking at 'split-window', its argument names and documentation should be
changed accordingly (right now it's using the horizontal concept). The optimal
would probably be to pass a symbol to a `where-new' argument (e.g., 'bottom,
'right, etc), but that might just be too disruptive on current code (unless some
backwards-compatible argument parsing code was also present).


Lluis

-- 
 "And it's much the same thing with knowledge, for whenever you learn
 something new, the whole world becomes that much richer."
 -- The Princess of Pure Reason, as told by Norton Juster in The Phantom
 Tollbooth

Re: C-x 2 and C-x 3

[Juri Linkov]

> Looking at 'split-window', its argument names and documentation should be
> changed accordingly (right now it's using the horizontal concept). The optimal
> would probably be to pass a symbol to a `where-new' argument (e.g., 'bottom,
> 'right, etc), but that might just be too disruptive on current code (unless some
> backwards-compatible argument parsing code was also present).

Your version of `split-window' is outdated.  The latest version is:

  (split-window &optional WINDOW SIZE SIDE)
  ...
  Optional third argument SIDE nil (or `below') specifies that the
  new window shall be located below WINDOW.  SIDE `above' means the
  new window shall be located above WINDOW.
  ...
  SIDE t (or `right') specifies that the new window shall be
  located on the right side of WINDOW.  SIDE `left' means the new
  window shall be located on the left of WINDOW.

So the most logical would be to name split functions by adding the
`SIDE' argument to the existing base function name using a template
"split-window-<SIDE>" thus creating new names (like Stefan already suggested):

split-window-below
split-window-above
split-window-right
split-window-left

Re: C-x 2 and C-x 3

[Lluís]

Juri Linkov writes:

>> Looking at 'split-window', its argument names and documentation should be
>> changed accordingly (right now it's using the horizontal concept). The optimal
>> would probably be to pass a symbol to a `where-new' argument (e.g., 'bottom,
>> 'right, etc), but that might just be too disruptive on current code (unless some
>> backwards-compatible argument parsing code was also present).

> Your version of `split-window' is outdated.  The latest version is:

>   (split-window &optional WINDOW SIZE SIDE)
>   ...
>   Optional third argument SIDE nil (or `below') specifies that the
>   new window shall be located below WINDOW.  SIDE `above' means the
>   new window shall be located above WINDOW.
>   ...
>   SIDE t (or `right') specifies that the new window shall be
>   located on the right side of WINDOW.  SIDE `left' means the new
>   window shall be located on the left of WINDOW.

> So the most logical would be to name split functions by adding the
> `SIDE' argument to the existing base function name using a template
> "split-window-<SIDE>" thus creating new names (like Stefan already suggested):

> split-window-below
> split-window-above
> split-window-right
> split-window-left

Aaaahhh! Excelent. Then I wouldn't give it any more thought, as this is, I
think, the most consistent way to name them.


Lluis

-- 
 "And it's much the same thing with knowledge, for whenever you learn
 something new, the whole world becomes that much richer."
 -- The Princess of Pure Reason, as told by Norton Juster in The Phantom
 Tollbooth

RE: C-x 2 and C-x 3

[Drew Adams]

j> So the most logical would be to name split functions by adding the
j> `SIDE' argument to the existing base function name using a template
j> "split-window-<SIDE>" thus creating new names (like Stefan 
j> already suggested):
j> split-window-below, split-window-above, split-window-right
j> split-window-left

Again:

d> if we really care about the selected window or which one
d> is new, then we probably should not speak anymore in terms
d> of the action as "splitting" a window but rather as "copying"
d> a window, to the right, below, or whatever:
d>
d> `copy-window-to-right', `copy-window-below'
d>
d> It's not just a `new-window-to-right' or `below'.  The new
d> window shows the same buffer.  It is essentially a window copy.

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).

copy-window-below, copy-window-above,
copy-window-right, copy-window-left

Re: C-x 2 and C-x 3

[Jambunathan K]

> copy-window-below, copy-window-above,
> copy-window-right, copy-window-left

One copies to an existing object. But clones (to) a new object. So
something like:

clone-window-dock-right 
clone-window-dock-below

It implies that the current window is cloned first and the newer window
gets docked to the right of or below the "older" window.

-- 

RE: C-x 2 and C-x 3

[Drew Adams]

> > copy-window-below, copy-window-above,
> > copy-window-right, copy-window-left
> 
> One copies to an existing object. But clones (to) a new object. So
> something like: clone-window-dock-right, clone-window-dock-below
> 
> It implies that the current window is cloned first and the 
> newer window gets docked to the right of or below the "older" window.

No.  "Copy" means copy: duplicate.  Whether a copy overwrites an existing object
or not does not affect whether the operation is copying.

Yes, the destination of copying is sometimes hidden, as in copying text to a
(hidden) clipboard.  But copying always means duplication in some form.

Re: C-x 2 and C-x 3

[Stephen J. Turnbull]

Jambunathan K writes:
 > 
 > > copy-window-below, copy-window-above,
 > > copy-window-right, copy-window-left
 > 
 > One copies to an existing object. But clones (to) a new object.

Um, guys?  Copying is an implementation detail.  The purpose of the
command is to make a new window.  Given that Emacs nowadays provides
frames, the new window is *intended* to be juxtaposed to the old one
for these commands.  Since the geometry of the rest of the frame
doesn't change, the obvious descriptive operative verb is "to split".

As for the ambiguity of "horizontal" and "vertical", let's live with
it.  All it takes is C-h k C-x 2 (resp. 3) to disambiguate.

I have to admit I got a good chuckle out of C-u downstairs C-x 2.

RE: C-x 2 and C-x 3

[Drew Adams]

> Copying is an implementation detail.

No, it has nothing to do with implementation.  It is a user-level operation.
Just like using `C' in Dired is a user-level copy operation.

> The purpose of the command is to make a new window.

Almost, but not quite.  The purpose of the command, what the command does, is to
make a new window...that is a copy of the selected window: same buffer.

The command copies the selected window.  It does _not_ just make a new window.
It makes a new window with the same buffer (and same window-point value etc.).
And that's the point.

Re: C-x 2 and C-x 3

[Alan Mackenzie]

Hello, Drew.

On Thu, Oct 27, 2011 at 08:38:50AM -0700, Drew Adams wrote:
> > Copying is an implementation detail.

> No, it has nothing to do with implementation.  It is a user-level operation.
> Just like using `C' in Dired is a user-level copy operation.

> > The purpose of the command is to make a new window.

> Almost, but not quite.  The purpose of the command, what the command does, is to
> make a new window...that is a copy of the selected window: same buffer.

> The command copies the selected window.  ...

That's a rather special use of the word "copy".  There is no copying,
just that you only see half of what you use to, but you see it twice - a
bit like some fancy mirror trick.  In fact, the second "copy" after C-x
2, is useless.  Only after scrolling does it make any sense.


> It does _not_ just make a new window.  It makes a new window with the
> same buffer (and same window-point value etc.).  And that's the point.

Not really.  The point is to make a new window.  Tell me, what buffer
are you going to display in this new window?  By default it's the same
buffer.  I suppose you could imagine displaying the _next_ buffer or
*scratch*, but the same buffer is as good as any.

A lot of the time, before the development of C-x 4 ..., you'd be
switching to a different buffer immediately anyway, just as even today
you might do C-x 2  C-x o  M-x man.

-- 
Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).

Re: C-x 2 and C-x 3

[Jambunathan K]

If split window is really about splitting the window and not really
about the buffer it displays then I would much prefer that these

(split-window-side-by-side &optional SIZE)
(split-window-above-each-other &optional SIZE)

be replaced with 

(split-window-linewise &optional here)
(split-window-columnwise &optional here)

In cartesian-speak, to draw a line one needs a point and a
gradient/slope.

here => effectively a boolean. If true, the split will pass through the
current cursor or mouse position.

linewise => a gradient of zero
columnwise => a gradient of infinity

The orientations of line or a column is pretty unambiguous, I believe.

Re: C-x 2 and C-x 3

[Lennart Borgman]

On Thu, Oct 27, 2011 at 18:41, Jambunathan K <kjambunathan@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> If split window is really about splitting the window and not really
> about the buffer it displays then I would much prefer that these
>
> (split-window-side-by-side &optional SIZE)
> (split-window-above-each-other &optional SIZE)
>
> be replaced with
>
> (split-window-linewise &optional here)

And that of course means splitting the lines? ;-)

Re: C-x 2 and C-x 3

[Jambunathan K]

>> (split-window-linewise &optional here)
> And that of course means splitting the lines? ;-)

No. "linewise" means "along the direction of line" and is not the same
as "line".

Can one confuse the direction of finger pointing to moon with the moon
itself?
-- 

Re: C-x 2 and C-x 3

[Thien-Thi Nguyen]

() Jambunathan K <kjambunathan@gmail.com>
() Thu, 27 Oct 2011 22:39:52 +0530

   Can one confuse the direction of finger pointing to moon with the moon
   itself?

It depends on its phase, probably.

Re: C-x 2 and C-x 3

[John Yates]

On Thu, Oct 27, 2011 at 12:41 PM, Jambunathan K <kjambunathan@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> (split-window-linewise &optional here)
> (split-window-columnwise &optional here)

While I like the notion of the optional HERE argument to control the
position of the slit these names fail to capture an important semantic
brought up earlier, namely that the user has control over which of the
resulting windows will receive focus.  IOW would
split-window-columnwise correspond to slit-window-left or
split-window-right?

Does anyone else find the term 'split' jarring?  Many GUI apps have
'splitters' (e.g. Excel).  If Emacs' primitives really did perform a
classic split then the resulting windows would show more or less the
contents that was on the screen prior to performing the split.  But
that is not what happens.  Emacs' splits really duplicate windows.

So maybe...

(dupe-window-above &optional HERE)
(dupe-window-below &optional HERE)
(dupe-window-left &optional HERE)
(dupe-window-right &optional HERE)

/john

Re: C-x 2 and C-x 3

[Stephen J. Turnbull]

John Yates writes:

 > Does anyone else find the term 'split' jarring?

No.

 > Many GUI apps have 'splitters' (e.g. Excel).  If Emacs' primitives
 > really did perform a classic split then the resulting windows would
 > show more or less the contents that was on the screen prior to
 > performing the split.

This might indeed be preferable.

 > But that is not what happens.  Emacs' splits really duplicate
 > windows.

No, they don't.  Both new windows are different from the original in
an important way: they're smaller.  They happen to start out
displaying the same content (but once again, the content displayed is
different from the original window's in almost all cases -- which you
can extend to all cases if you're a Pythonista and like significant
whitespace).

And this artifact is useless, as Alan Mackenzie points out.
Similarly, a spreadsheet split is useless until you scroll it, at
which point it is no longer a split of the original content.  The
point is the division of a rectangular framing element into two
adjoined rectangular framing elements.  If that's not a split, you owe
me my banana back.

I really don't get this focus on an implementation detail of the
displayed content of the window, a detail that is almost invariably
voided instantaneously.

Re: C-x 2 and C-x 3

[Dave Abrahams]

on Thu Oct 27 2011, Jambunathan K <kjambunathan-AT-gmail.com> wrote:

>> copy-window-below, copy-window-above,
>> copy-window-right, copy-window-left
>
> One copies to an existing object. But clones (to) a new object. 

Since we're painting the bike shed...

  No, one /assigns/ to an existing object and copies to a new object.

-- 
Dave Abrahams
BoostPro Computing
http://www.boostpro.com

Re: C-x 2 and C-x 3

[Juri Linkov]

> 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

[Chong Yidong]

Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> 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.

Re: C-x 2 and C-x 3

[Tim Cross]

On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 2:03 AM, Chong Yidong <cyd@gnu.org> wrote:
> Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> 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

[Barry Warsaw]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 753 bytes --]

On Oct 26, 2011, at 10:30 AM, Chong Yidong wrote:

>Martin recently introduced the command names
>
>  split-window-above-each-other -> C-x 2
>  split-window-side-by-side     -> C-x 3
>
>for which split-window-{vertically|horizontally} are now aliases.
>
>I don't mind the attempt to address the vertical/horizontal ambiguity,
>but the new names aren't ungrammatical.  In English, "split X above each
>other" sounds like a nonsense phrase, and "split X side by side" isn't
>much better.
>
>How about split-window-by-width or split-window-by-height?  Or can
>someone suggest something better?

How about:

split-window-by-drawing-along-a-line-from-east-to-west
split-window-by-drawing-along-a-line-from-north-to-south

:)

-Barry

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 836 bytes --]

Re: C-x 2 and C-x 3

[Alan Mackenzie]

Hi, Barry!

On Wed, Oct 26, 2011 at 11:36:55AM -0400, Barry Warsaw wrote:
> On Oct 26, 2011, at 10:30 AM, Chong Yidong wrote:

> >Martin recently introduced the command names

> >  split-window-above-each-other -> C-x 2
> >  split-window-side-by-side     -> C-x 3

> >for which split-window-{vertically|horizontally} are now aliases.

> >I don't mind the attempt to address the vertical/horizontal ambiguity,
> >but the new names aren't ungrammatical.  In English, "split X above each
> >other" sounds like a nonsense phrase, and "split X side by side" isn't
> >much better.

> >How about split-window-by-width or split-window-by-height?  Or can
> >someone suggest something better?

> How about:

> split-window-by-drawing-along-a-line-from-east-to-west
> split-window-by-drawing-along-a-line-from-north-to-south

> :)

I think I'm with you on this one, Barry.

Now I've got some bugs to fix.  (Fancy lending a hand? ;-)

> -Barry

-- 
Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).

Re: C-x 2 and C-x 3

[Barry Warsaw]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 373 bytes --]

On Oct 26, 2011, at 06:15 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:

>Hi, Barry!

Hi Alan!

>> split-window-by-drawing-along-a-line-from-east-to-west
>> split-window-by-drawing-along-a-line-from-north-to-south
>
>> :)
>
>I think I'm with you on this one, Barry.

At least it's unambiguous. :)

>Now I've got some bugs to fix.  (Fancy lending a hand? ;-)

Oy!

-Barry


[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 836 bytes --]

Re: C-x 2 and C-x 3

[Juri Linkov]

> How about:
>
> split-window-by-drawing-along-a-line-from-east-to-west
> split-window-by-drawing-along-a-line-from-north-to-south

Then you also need compass-mode :)

Re: C-x 2 and C-x 3

[martin rudalics]

 > How about:
 >
 > split-window-by-drawing-along-a-line-from-east-to-west
 > split-window-by-drawing-along-a-line-from-north-to-south

A north-to-south split here gets me a frame like

  ----------
|          |
|          |
|----------|
|          |
|          |
  ----------

In the other room a north-to-south split will show up as

  ----------
|    |     |
|    |     |
|    |     |
|    |     |
|    |     |
  ----------

And downstairs a north-to-south split will get me

  ----------
|         /|
|       /  |
|     /    |
|   /      |
| /        |
  ----------

martin

Re: C-x 2 and C-x 3

[Stefan Monnier]

> And downstairs a north-to-south split will get me

>  ----------
> |         /|
> |       /  |
> |     /    |
> |   /      |
> | /        |
>  ----------

How do I get this one?


        Stefan

Re: C-x 2 and C-x 3

[Deniz Dogan]

On 2011-10-27 14:30, Stefan Monnier wrote:
>> And downstairs a north-to-south split will get me
>
>>   ----------
>> |         /|
>> |       /  |
>> |     /    |
>> |   /      |
>> | /        |
>>   ----------
>
> How do I get this one?
>

With vivid imagination.

Re: C-x 2 and C-x 3

[martin rudalics]

 >> And downstairs a north-to-south split will get me
 >
 >>  ----------
 >> |         /|
 >> |       /  |
 >> |     /    |
 >> |   /      |
 >> | /        |
 >>  ----------
 >
 > How do I get this one?

IIRC I turned the screen by 45 degrees ("horizontally").

martin

Re: C-x 2 and C-x 3

[Juanma Barranquero]

On Thu, Oct 27, 2011 at 14:30, Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> wrote:

>>  ----------
>> |         /|
>> |       /  |
>> |     /    |
>> |   /      |
>> | /        |
>>  ----------
>
> How do I get this one?

Trivially: Martin will change the window-handling primitives to
support triangular (or, more generally, polygonal) windows, Eli will
adjust the redisplay engine to display them, and Chong will rewrite
the relevant info files. All before next Sunday's new pretest, of
course.

    Juanma

What is ISO? (was: C-x 2 and C-x 3)

[Juri Linkov]

Another problem with new function names in window.el: some functions
use the term "ISO Combination" but their documentation doesn't explain
what does ISO mean.  Unless documented, the first guess is
"International Organization for Standardization" :-)

Re: What is ISO?

[martin rudalics]

 > Another problem with new function names in window.el: some functions
 > use the term "ISO Combination" but their documentation doesn't explain
 > what does ISO mean.  Unless documented, the first guess is
 > "International Organization for Standardization" :-)

"iso" stands for "equal" as in isobars or isomorphic.  I couldn't think
of a better term for `window-iso-combined-p' say.
Something like `window-combined-in-direction-p' maybe ...

martin

Re: What is ISO?

[Chong Yidong]

martin rudalics <rudalics@gmx.at> writes:

>> Another problem with new function names in window.el: some functions
>> use the term "ISO Combination" but their documentation doesn't explain
>> what does ISO mean.  Unless documented, the first guess is
>> "International Organization for Standardization" :-)
>
> "iso" stands for "equal" as in isobars or isomorphic.  I couldn't think
> of a better term for `window-iso-combined-p' say.
> Something like `window-combined-in-direction-p' maybe ...

Might as well omit "-iso-":

 window-iso-combination-p -> window-combination-p
 window-iso-combined-p    -> window-combined-p
 window-iso-combinations  -> window-combinations

Re: What is ISO?

[martin rudalics]

 > Might as well omit "-iso-":
 >
 >  window-iso-combination-p -> window-combination-p
 >  window-iso-combined-p    -> window-combined-p
 >  window-iso-combinations  -> window-combinations

If I wanted that, I'd use, for example, `window-child' instead of
`window-combination-p'.  Here I'm interested whether the object is a
combination in the same (equal) direction as the calling (usually
resize-) function currently proceeds.

martin

Re: What is ISO?

[Chong Yidong]

martin rudalics <rudalics@gmx.at> writes:

>> Might as well omit "-iso-":
>>
>>  window-iso-combination-p -> window-combination-p
>>  window-iso-combined-p    -> window-combined-p
>>  window-iso-combinations  -> window-combinations
>
> If I wanted that, I'd use, for example, `window-child' instead of
> `window-combination-p'.  Here I'm interested whether the object is a
> combination in the same (equal) direction as the calling (usually
> resize-) function currently proceeds.

Then do

window-directional-combination-p
window-directionally-combined-p
window-directional-combinations

and make the arguments non-optional (so instead of a HORIZONTAL arg,
have an arg named DIRECTION which can be `vertical' or `horizontal').

Re: What is ISO?

[martin rudalics]

 > Then do
 >
 > window-directional-combination-p
 > window-directionally-combined-p
 > window-directional-combinations
 >
 > and make the arguments non-optional (so instead of a HORIZONTAL arg,
 > have an arg named DIRECTION which can be `vertical' or `horizontal').

And I was looking for a short string in order to avoid additional line
breaks in the resize code.  I'd rather remove `window-iso-combined-p'
from the Elisp manual - it's not that important anyway.

martin

Re: What is ISO?

[Chong Yidong]

martin rudalics <rudalics@gmx.at> writes:

>> window-directional-combination-p
>> window-directionally-combined-p
>> window-directional-combinations
>
> And I was looking for a short string in order to avoid additional line
> breaks in the resize code.  I'd rather remove `window-iso-combined-p'
> from the Elisp manual - it's not that important anyway.

It is good to have short function names, but not if they are too cryptic
to understand, and the "iso" stuff falls in that category.  Whether or
not these functions are documented in the Lisp manual is irrelevant.

Re: What is ISO?

[martin rudalics]

> It is good to have short function names, but not if they are too cryptic
> to understand, and the "iso" stuff falls in that category.  Whether or
> not these functions are documented in the Lisp manual is irrelevant.

I removed the "iso" stuff.

martin

Re: What is ISO?

[Andreas Röhler]

Am 28.10.2011 19:16, schrieb martin rudalics:
>  > Another problem with new function names in window.el: some functions
>  > use the term "ISO Combination" but their documentation doesn't explain
>  > what does ISO mean. Unless documented, the first guess is
>  > "International Organization for Standardization" :-)
>

that was my guess too :(

Cheers


> "iso" stands for "equal" as in isobars or isomorphic. I couldn't think
> of a better term for `window-iso-combined-p' say.
> Something like `window-combined-in-direction-p' maybe ...
>
> martin
>
>

Re: C-x 2 and C-x 3

[grischka]

David De La Harpe Golden wrote:
> split-window-horizontally-select-left

"Horizon is the apparent line that separates earth from sky."
See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horizon

Re: C-x 2 and C-x 3

[Eli Zaretskii]

> Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2011 19:01:43 +0200
> From: grischka <grishka@gmx.de>
> Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org
> 
> David De La Harpe Golden wrote:
> > split-window-horizontally-select-left
> 
> "Horizon is the apparent line that separates earth from sky."

There's no "horizon" anywhere in sight in that name.