RE: [External] : Re: Gitlab Migration

[Drew Adams <drew.adams@oracle.com>]

> > Con: It's not the same thing.  The `kill-ring'
> >      is not what non-emacsers are used to.
> 
> [ This is all very hypothetical, so it clearly doesn't matter, but IMO
>   the difference is small enough not to matter when it comes to
>   choosing this key binding, IMO.  ]

It's a matter of opinion, yes.

It's a bit like undo.  Emacs's undo is similar
at first sight to what people are used to, but
"it's not the same thing".  Possibly confusing,
misleading.  But no, not the end of the world.

> > This is similar to the pros & cons for words
> > in different languages that look the same or
> > similar, and may (or may not) have similar
> > meanings and uses, but can nevertheless be
> > quite different in some respects.
> >
> > In French they're called "faux amis" - fake
> > friends.
> 
> Nope.  "Faux amis" are words whose core meanings
> are just plain different, 

Yes and no.  How dissimilar the meanings are
("core" or not) points to _how_ false the friend
is.  The point is that there's a difference, at
least in some contexts, and that difference is
hidden from the person fooled - a gotcha.

It's the similarity together with the difference,
and not being aware of the difference, that makes
for a faux ami.  It's about that ignorance and
the resultant "gotcha!"  It's not about how close
the core meanings are.  But yes, the stronger the
difference in meaning, the more the friends are
false.

And there are all sorts - some of which are very
false, and some of which are quite similar but
differ in usage or connotation in at least some
contexts, perhaps contexts that can be important.

That context relevance happens especially for
more recent loan words than for words taken up
by English from French in the 12th century.
It's common, for instance, for the borrowing
language to give the borrowed word a meaning
with a narrower scope, when it already has
words for the wider-scope meaning.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_friend

"As well as producing _completely false_ friends,
the use of loanwords often results in the use of
a word in a restricted context, which may then
develop new meanings not found in the original
language."
 
> `C-x` for "Cut" has been standard for a lot more than a decade.

Yes, and?  `C-w' has been standard in Emacs for
longer than "Cut" has existed.

Anyway, I won't argue about `C-x' (or `C-w').
I don't see Emacs moving `C-x', but hey, I've
been wrong before...