From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Richard Stallman Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: New keybinding suggestion: C-x _ for `shrink-window' Date: Sat, 03 Nov 2007 20:11:03 -0400 Message-ID: References: <87prysd8n6.fsf@bzg.ath.cx> <87prys55kc.fsf@catnip.gol.com> Reply-To: rms@gnu.org NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15 X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1194135082 27853 80.91.229.12 (4 Nov 2007 00:11:22 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 4 Nov 2007 00:11:22 +0000 (UTC) Cc: bzg@altern.org, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Miles Bader Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sun Nov 04 01:11:24 2007 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1IoT5H-0005GJ-8q for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sun, 04 Nov 2007 01:11:23 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IoT56-0003Dj-JK for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sat, 03 Nov 2007 20:11:12 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1IoT52-0003DM-Cj for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 03 Nov 2007 20:11:08 -0400 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1IoT4z-0003DA-Tv for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 03 Nov 2007 20:11:07 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IoT4z-0003D7-Nz for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 03 Nov 2007 20:11:05 -0400 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([140.186.70.10]) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1IoT4y-0000eP-L9 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 03 Nov 2007 20:11:04 -0400 Original-Received: from rms by fencepost.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1IoT4x-0007uA-G2; Sat, 03 Nov 2007 20:11:03 -0400 In-reply-to: <87prys55kc.fsf@catnip.gol.com> (message from Miles Bader on Sat, 03 Nov 2007 13:14:11 +0900) X-detected-kernel: by monty-python.gnu.org: Linux 2.6, seldom 2.4 (older, 4) X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:82465 Archived-At: > "Up is more" is a common analogy. Using it here could be a good idea > for simplicity's sake. The most common case of changing window > sizes is with two windows. So it is very convenient to be able > to specify "more" or "less" without saying which boundary. Hmm, I'd think + and - would be the most natural here... ? + would be good for "up" if there were only one dimension involved. But we want commands for growing and shrinking, vertically and horizontally. Just + and - are not enough. E.g. + and - for simple "increase/decrease size" (I guess it needs to choose horizontal or vertical, but it could just use the "innermost" window split) and arrow-keys for "nudge the window border in that direction". If using the innermost window split is good enough as regards the choice of dorection, maybe just + and - are sufficient. Bastien said: FWIW, I think making both bi-directional and four-directional behaviors available from `window-resize' will be somewhat confusing for the user. I don't agree. If they are clearly different kinds of characters (like + and - vs arrows), I think users will understand they work differently. We could give it a try and see what users think of it.