From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Kyle Jones Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: The minibuffer vs. Dialog Boxes (Re: Making XEmacs be more up-to-date) Date: Sat, 20 Apr 2002 12:28:35 -0700 Sender: emacs-devel-admin@gnu.org Message-ID: References: <7263-Sat20Apr2002145929+0300-eliz@is.elta.co.il> <3CC1BEB9.9020104@cs.berkeley.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: localhost.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: main.gmane.org 1019331032 943 127.0.0.1 (20 Apr 2002 19:30:32 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@main.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 20 Apr 2002 19:30:32 +0000 (UTC) Cc: Eli Zaretskii , link@pobox.com, bradym@balestra.org, xemacs-design@xemacs.org, emacs-devel@gnu.org Return-path: Original-Received: from quimby.gnus.org ([80.91.224.244]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1 (Debian)) id 16z0Z6-0000F6-00 for ; Sat, 20 Apr 2002 21:30:32 +0200 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([199.232.76.164]) by quimby.gnus.org with esmtp (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian)) id 16z0t4-0006SH-00 for ; Sat, 20 Apr 2002 21:51:10 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=fencepost.gnu.org) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 3.34 #1 (Debian)) id 16z0Yn-0000VU-00; Sat, 20 Apr 2002 15:30:13 -0400 Original-Received: from ice.wonderworks.com ([192.203.206.2]) by fencepost.gnu.org with smtp (Exim 3.34 #1 (Debian)) id 16z0XP-0000Ne-00 for ; Sat, 20 Apr 2002 15:28:47 -0400 Original-Received: by ice.wonderworks.com id g3KJSZY42487; Sat, 20 Apr 2002 12:28:35 -0700 (PDT) Original-To: Michael Toomim In-Reply-To: <3CC1BEB9.9020104@cs.berkeley.edu> X-Mailer: VM 7.04 under 21.4 (patch 6) "Common Lisp" XEmacs Lucid X-Face: /cA45WHG7jWq>(O3&Z57Y<"WsX5ddc,4c#w0F*zrV#=M 0@~@,s;b,aMtR5Sqs"+nU.z^CSFQ9t`z2>W,S,]:[+2^ Nbf6v4g>!&,7R4Ot4Wg{&tm=WX7P["9%a)_da48-^tGy ,qz]Z,Zz\{E.,]'EO+F)@$KtF&V Errors-To: emacs-devel-admin@gnu.org X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.9 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: Emacs development discussions. List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:2873 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.devel:2873 Michael Toomim writes: > Eli Zaretskii wrote: > >>From: Terje Bless > >>Date: Sat, 20 Apr 2002 13:03:10 +0200 > > >>And speaking of which, the thing that confused me most over the years was > >>the terminology. A "buffer" is a "document" and a "frame" is a "window"? > >>Why do I have to choose "New Frame" when what I /really/ want is a new > >>window? And I don't work with "buffers"; I work with "files" or > >>"documents". "Buffers" are something hardware /has/ or that I implement in > >>code, it's not something I work with day-to-day. > > > > > > There's a Glossary in the manual to ease the culture shock. I think > > we should advertise the glossary more, and perhaps make it more > > accessible by providing special links to it from doc strings etc. > > > > I don't think it's reasonable to expect Emacs to change its > > terminology because most of it predates the one you are accustomed to. > > For example, Emacs was talking about windows when glass teletype > > displays were the only ones in existence. > > > > As for buffers, I disagree that it's unused in the context used by > > Emacs. I've seen several editors that do the same. > > > > I agree with Terje on this. If XEmacs is to be designed to be more easily > usable by newbies, the terminology should change along with the interface. What about the confusion this will cause with existing users? This sounds to me like changing Emacs for the sake of those who don't like or support it to the detriment of those who do like and support it, and that is just perverse.