We 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.
Obviously, if I thought you were speaking of the Lisp command name, then
that is what I meant was irrelevant here. And the menu command name is
obviously relevant to the menu command name (!). And the rest of the line
you quote read "Again: `yank'.", making it even clearer that I meant that
the Lisp command name was irrelevant to the menu command name. Is that what
you disagree with?
> > 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.
I proposed "Frames", not "Windows" - see just above. I simply mentioned that
a menu (called "Windows") with a similar purpose is a common occurrence.
> 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.
Verbs without objects in the File menu should, by default, refer to the
default object for that menu, which is the current file/buffer. "Split" by
itself would not suggest that a new window was to be created. It might
suggest that the current file/buffer would be split, but that is not what
happens.
What's wrong with "New Window" for the menu command to create a new window?
_______________________________________________
Emacs-devel mailing list
Emacs-devel@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-devel
