From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: "Juanma Barranquero" Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.help Subject: Re: basic question: going back to dired Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2008 14:14:20 +0200 Message-ID: References: <4884DC7F.6060406@gmail.com> <819feff4-76e3-4bf8-9ece-7b47f099efc2@j22g2000hsf.googlegroups.com> <87mykaw8sb.fsf@nonospaz.fatphil.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1216728927 21792 80.91.229.12 (22 Jul 2008 12:15:27 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2008 12:15:27 +0000 (UTC) To: help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Original-X-From: help-gnu-emacs-bounces+geh-help-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Tue Jul 22 14:16:15 2008 Return-path: Envelope-to: geh-help-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1KLGmJ-00081w-H6 for geh-help-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Tue, 22 Jul 2008 14:15:39 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:59941 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1KLGlQ-0003Ap-1P for geh-help-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Tue, 22 Jul 2008 08:14:44 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1KLGl6-00039P-BI for help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Tue, 22 Jul 2008 08:14:24 -0400 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1KLGl4-00038G-Qx for help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Tue, 22 Jul 2008 08:14:24 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=38714 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1KLGl4-000386-L1 for help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Tue, 22 Jul 2008 08:14:22 -0400 Original-Received: from nf-out-0910.google.com ([64.233.182.187]:45189) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1KLGl4-0006tu-4y for help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Tue, 22 Jul 2008 08:14:22 -0400 Original-Received: by nf-out-0910.google.com with SMTP id c7so6518395nfi.26 for ; Tue, 22 Jul 2008 05:14:21 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:to :subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type :content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; bh=w9o44iYY5xI0ISiQZCq32e8eAHymWDwmgRQHlCVEe64=; b=V4knXUtZZU8H6+TrVgNxpvJKySvB23DYBVUqaACD8n1HgFcDUFljxEOKy3IFAjzTpk Z4unx3kiTapDkXlkYAb/0nH5tIrZvyfkyVsubYI+/pigpFDNRQd6WfkbhzqM09Eslxcp Dl8fimMQjvVsocseiSdH8JMMFW/seVOVSTj8Q= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version :content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition :references; b=OjVK2fuR38e2+z0doWawW2W/MHpqFTy0LJYZTcSA3PZvrc7M78XI7qB9976s92/xN5 TR9lSdEVAb25tzfPdusFDq4pu3DV7hRxFG8k9qmXNn4sjjO2bE+V4AijRmCWDOun5nMd pqO0jGJ6Hl6ordtNsrgYYvgAXP3qxuZidju38= Original-Received: by 10.210.72.19 with SMTP id u19mr4418543eba.55.1216728860864; Tue, 22 Jul 2008 05:14:20 -0700 (PDT) Original-Received: by 10.210.71.14 with HTTP; Tue, 22 Jul 2008 05:14:20 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: Content-Disposition: inline X-detected-kernel: by monty-python.gnu.org: Linux 2.6 (newer, 2) X-BeenThere: help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Users list for the GNU Emacs text editor List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: help-gnu-emacs-bounces+geh-help-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: help-gnu-emacs-bounces+geh-help-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.help:55790 Archived-At: On Tue, Jul 22, 2008 at 13:50, Juanma wrote: > And why should "shortcut" be more fitting than "keybinding"? I don't know. I'm not even defending the idea that "shortcut" is more fitting. If anything, I'm defending the idea that "keybinding" is not very good, not because of any intrinsic quality or defect of the term "keybinding", just because it is a bit too specifically emacsy for something that many other programs allow, under a different name. The best name is the one the users understand more easily (whichever it may be). > Emacs does lots more than text editing, and the term > "buffer" fits fine for all the tasks, where term "file" doesn not. The term "workspace" fits even better, don't you think? And, what does think the average user who does intuitively know (I believe) what a "work space" could be, but not necessarily what a "buffer" is? > That is called "loosing generality", at least in Spanish, which you > know. In my Castilian Spanish it'd be more like "perder generalidad", but I get your meaning ;-) > You say that there are only historical reasons for sticking to Emacs > terminology. Sorry, but no, I didn't say that. I said: > There's nothing sacred in > "buffer" and "keybinding" and "minibuffer", just history. Of course there are at least two reasons, other than history, to stick with the statu quo: lack of resources, and existing users' resistance. :) I get the feeling that if Emacs had used "shortcut" and "workspace" since the beginning of (Emacs) times, and the current trend were to use "keybinding" and "buffer", some old Emacs hands would react against the idea of change the very same way they do now. > It's > all about considering that users (and in particular a user able to deal with > Emacs: this is not Notepad, ok?) can't deal with remembering what "buffer" > means, which is nonsense. Sorry, I don't buy that argument. Of course adopting a commonly used terminology would help those that are not yet "able to deal with Emacs". Standards (like the CUA C-x/C-c/C-v keyb... shortc... whatevers) exist for a reason. > Juanma (yeah, me too) Not only that, we're both Juanma B.* Juanma Ba.*