From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: "Stephen J. Turnbull" Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Proposal to improve the nomenclature of scrolling directions Date: Mon, 05 Nov 2012 12:29:52 +0900 Message-ID: <87vcdkiv67.fsf@uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> References: <83fw4p46nd.fsf@gnu.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1352086213 23506 80.91.229.3 (5 Nov 2012 03:30:13 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 5 Nov 2012 03:30:13 +0000 (UTC) Cc: Juanma Barranquero , Eli Zaretskii , monnier@iro.umontreal.ca, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Dani Moncayo Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Mon Nov 05 04:30:22 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 1TVDOI-0005D0-F4 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 05 Nov 2012 04:30:22 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:53902 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1TVDO9-0003vt-B3 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sun, 04 Nov 2012 22:30:13 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:46697) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1TVDO5-0003vd-UO for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 04 Nov 2012 22:30:10 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1TVDO3-0001rq-Lb for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 04 Nov 2012 22:30:08 -0500 Original-Received: from mgmt2.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp ([130.158.97.224]:60609) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1TVDO1-0001ek-KQ; Sun, 04 Nov 2012 22:30:05 -0500 Original-Received: from uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp (uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp [130.158.99.156]) by mgmt2.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 71F5D97088D; Mon, 5 Nov 2012 12:29:52 +0900 (JST) Original-Received: by uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 3827E1A3487; Mon, 5 Nov 2012 12:29:52 +0900 (JST) In-Reply-To: X-Mailer: VM undefined under 21.5 (beta32) "habanero" b0d40183ac79 XEmacs Lucid (x86_64-unknown-linux) X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6.x X-Received-From: 130.158.97.224 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:154678 Archived-At: Dani Moncayo writes: > Therefore, we should find a general solution for this. There's only one "general solution": prohibit from using Emacs all those people who disagree with your intuition of what's moving. I've seen this discussion several times on both the XEmacs and Emacs lists, and the end is always inconclusive. The best you can do is simply choose a consistent terminology, accepting that a large number of people will never agree. AFAIK that's already been achieved, by choosing more or less arbitrarily[1] what makes sense to RMS. FWIW, for me personally "view" has no useful semantics here. It simply indicates a visible region of the buffer. "Scroll" means the buffer content moves "in the view". The idea that the view moves makes no sense to me because of the ergonomics: moving view means your eyes have to move, while moving content brings the content to your focal point. Also, in "scroll-view" the word "view" is redundant, because scrolling implies that the view is restricted. Net results is that "scroll-up" should mean content "below" the view should "move up" into it. So my intuition agrees with current Emacs practice. Since I agree with current practice, it's a weak test but I believe this doesn't actually matter. My fingers know what to do regardless of the name. Footnotes: [1] At best a poll was taken, but surely no proper ergonomic study was done!