From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: "Drew Adams" Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: RE: C-x 2 and C-x 3 Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2011 07:58:35 -0700 Message-ID: References: <87wrbs5vsx.fsf@gnu.org><8139egbc9l.fsf@gmail.com> <8162jc7xy2.fsf@gmail.com> <4EA80D40.8070104@harpegolden.net> 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 1319641144 31270 80.91.229.12 (26 Oct 2011 14:59:04 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2011 14:59:04 +0000 (UTC) To: "'David De La Harpe Golden'" , Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Wed Oct 26 16:58:59 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 1RJ4wV-0004TG-1X for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 26 Oct 2011 16:58:59 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:39019 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RJ4wU-0000y2-33 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 26 Oct 2011 10:58:58 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.92]:34631) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RJ4wN-0000pQ-Mw for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 26 Oct 2011 10:58:55 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RJ4wJ-0007dc-KB for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 26 Oct 2011 10:58:51 -0400 Original-Received: from rcsinet15.oracle.com ([148.87.113.117]:49204) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RJ4wJ-0007dC-AV for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 26 Oct 2011 10:58:47 -0400 Original-Received: from acsinet22.oracle.com (acsinet22.oracle.com [141.146.126.238]) by rcsinet15.oracle.com (Switch-3.4.4/Switch-3.4.4) with ESMTP id p9QEwgCi028676 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Wed, 26 Oct 2011 14:58:43 GMT Original-Received: from acsmt358.oracle.com (acsmt358.oracle.com [141.146.40.158]) by acsinet22.oracle.com (8.14.4+Sun/8.14.4) with ESMTP id p9QEwgVx021380 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 26 Oct 2011 14:58:42 GMT Original-Received: from abhmt119.oracle.com (abhmt119.oracle.com [141.146.116.71]) by acsmt358.oracle.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id p9QEwaiY011516; Wed, 26 Oct 2011 09:58:36 -0500 Original-Received: from dradamslap1 (/130.35.178.194) by default (Oracle Beehive Gateway v4.0) with ESMTP ; Wed, 26 Oct 2011 07:58:36 -0700 X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11 In-Reply-To: <4EA80D40.8070104@harpegolden.net> Thread-Index: AcyT5JGCQFjh+Ob1Sfqwf38zAYv5lAACUZJA X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.6109 X-Source-IP: acsinet22.oracle.com [141.146.126.238] X-Auth-Type: Internal IP X-CT-RefId: str=0001.0A090202.4EA82023.01B5:SCFMA922111,ss=1,re=-4.000,fgs=0 X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 1) X-Received-From: 148.87.113.117 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:145576 Archived-At: > 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.