> From: "Drew Adams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2005 09:53:13 -0700 > > We refer to the buffer on purpose: we want users to see Emacs > terminology even in the menus, and even when the menus are following > established UI guidelines and use standard entries like "New" and > "Close". > > Why then do we use Paste instead of Yank?
It's not the same: "buffer" is _in_addition_ to "Save" etc., not _instead_ of them. > Menu-item names can serve as a bridge between terms that newbies are used to > and Emacs terminology. Exactly: thus "Save Buffer As" includes both the familiar "Save As" and the reference to "buffer". > > a. Currently, there is an inconsistency wrt "Buffer" and > "(current buffer)". > > That's not an inconsistency: in the first case, "Buffer" is part of > the command name; in the second, it's a minor comment about the > command's operation. > > 1. "Save Buffer As" runs command `write-file'. Where's the beef - er - > "buffer"? > 2. "Save (current buffer)" runs command `save-buffer'. > 3. "Close (current buffer)" runs command `kill-this-buffer'. > 4. "Revert Buffer" runs command `revert-buffer'. Wed are miscommunicating: I didn't mean the name of the Lisp function, I meant the command name that appears in the menu. > - The command name is irrelevant here. I disagree. > - A minor comment about a command's operation belongs perhaps in a tooltip > or help, but not in the name of the menu item itself. There were a lot of iterations about this, the current situation was a compromise between what different people wanted. Let's not go there again. > > New is better than New File (but see 3, below). > > No, it is not better, since it doesn't say what new entity is created. > Other GUI programs have a submenu there or work only with one type of > entities (or just leave it vague, which we didn't want to do). > > So "New File" says that a new file is created? Yes, it says that, but it > tells not the truth: no file is created by this operation. A lone "New" isn't better. I think we didn't find a better alternative. > > 5. Move all of the window and frame stuff to a new menu, "Frames". > > Not good: we have a crammed menu bar already, adding more top-level > items would only make things worse with no real advantage. > > Agreed. But 1) this stuff has little to do with "File"; 2) use of a > "Windows" menu, having a similar purpose, is common in other apps; Richard didn't want that, since in Emacs, `window' means something different. > Another possible renaming I forgot to mention is "Split Window". The window > is not split to result in a single window with a divider. "New Window" would > be a better name for this menu item. I think other applications use the same name. Perhaps just "Split" would be better, I don't know. _______________________________________________ Emacs-devel mailing list Emacs-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-devel
