From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: David Kastrup Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: New start up splash screen annoyance... Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2007 21:08:16 +0200 Message-ID: <86lkau4l7j.fsf@lola.quinscape.zz> References: <87d4waxnw7.fsf@uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> <87ejgq3pp6.fsf@uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> <85vea1rfly.fsf@lola.goethe.zz> <85fy15o1cs.fsf@lola.goethe.zz> <854phjiunz.fsf@lola.goethe.zz> <200709251847.l8PIlJcZ025815@oogie-boogie.ics.uci.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1190747324 6716 80.91.229.12 (25 Sep 2007 19:08:44 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2007 19:08:44 +0000 (UTC) Cc: rms@gnu.org, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Dan Nicolaescu Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Tue Sep 25 21:08:39 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 1IaFli-0003uG-DU for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 25 Sep 2007 21:08:26 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IaFlf-0004BE-69 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 25 Sep 2007 15:08:23 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1IaFlb-0004Ax-52 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 25 Sep 2007 15:08:19 -0400 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1IaFlZ-0004AV-VR for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 25 Sep 2007 15:08:18 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IaFlZ-0004AS-Q2 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 25 Sep 2007 15:08:17 -0400 Original-Received: from pc3.berlin.powerweb.de ([62.67.228.11]) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1IaFlZ-0007Kc-5b for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 25 Sep 2007 15:08:17 -0400 Original-Received: from quinscape.de (dslnet.212-29-44.ip210.dokom.de [212.29.44.210] (may be forged)) by pc3.berlin.powerweb.de (8.9.3p3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id VAA05488 for ; Tue, 25 Sep 2007 21:08:04 +0200 X-Delivered-To: Original-Received: (qmail 15704 invoked from network); 25 Sep 2007 19:08:16 -0000 Original-Received: from unknown (HELO lola.quinscape.zz) ([10.0.3.43]) (envelope-sender ) by ns.quinscape.de (qmail-ldap-1.03) with SMTP for ; 25 Sep 2007 19:08:16 -0000 Original-Received: by lola.quinscape.zz (Postfix, from userid 1001) id 3F3048F97B; Tue, 25 Sep 2007 21:08:16 +0200 (CEST) In-Reply-To: <200709251847.l8PIlJcZ025815@oogie-boogie.ics.uci.edu> (Dan Nicolaescu's message of "Tue\, 25 Sep 2007 11\:47\:19 -0700") User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/23.0.50 (gnu/linux) X-Detected-Kernel: Linux 2.4-2.6 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:79841 Archived-At: Dan Nicolaescu writes: > Richard Stallman writes: > > > ! " For this window of the frame: > > ! mouse-1: select (drag to resize), mouse-2: maximize, mouse-3: vanish") > > > > "delete" would be better than "vanish". > > > > Aside from that, do people like it? > > I do (provided "vanish" is replaced with something better). Let me just explain the motivation for "vanish" here so that perhaps someone can come up with a better term: "delete", "remove" or "close" (which I also considered) could make the naive user worry that his buffer or even his file will get deleted. While "close" at least does not cause this worry for the _file_, it might still surprise the user that the buffer stays around. "evaporate" does not really help. "hide" might be an idea. "unmap" is probably most accurate, but I am not sure whether it might be somewhat too technical. But it's probably the best I can think of, at least better than "vanish". -- David Kastrup