From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: anerbenartzi Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: C-x 2 and C-x 3 Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2011 03:36:09 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <32722940.post@talk.nabble.com> References: <87wrbs5vsx.fsf@gnu.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1319625785 12597 80.91.229.12 (26 Oct 2011 10:43:05 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2011 10:43:05 +0000 (UTC) To: Emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Wed Oct 26 12:43:02 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 1RJ0wl-000643-Rz for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 26 Oct 2011 12:43:00 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:57802 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RJ0wg-0001eP-3Q for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 26 Oct 2011 06:42:54 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.92]:46205) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RJ0qC-0008IW-QG for Emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 26 Oct 2011 06:36:13 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RJ0qB-0001UO-37 for Emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 26 Oct 2011 06:36:12 -0400 Original-Received: from sam.nabble.com ([216.139.236.26]:39761) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RJ0qA-0001UJ-Vm for Emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 26 Oct 2011 06:36:11 -0400 Original-Received: from isper.nabble.com ([192.168.236.156]) by sam.nabble.com with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1RJ0q9-0007YP-E1 for Emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 26 Oct 2011 03:36:09 -0700 In-Reply-To: <87wrbs5vsx.fsf@gnu.org> X-Nabble-From: anerbenartzi@gmail.com X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 2) X-Received-From: 216.139.236.26 X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 26 Oct 2011 06:42:51 -0400 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:145559 Archived-At: 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.