> Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2005 18:41:31 +0900 > From: Miles Bader <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Cc: Miles Bader <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Eli Zaretskii <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, > [EMAIL PROTECTED], > [EMAIL PROTECTED], emacs-devel@gnu.org > > On 6/27/05, Jason Rumney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > But it doesn't do the opposite of split-window... > > > > That's a rather pedantic definition of opposite > > No it's not (are you serious?). "Unsplit window" vaguely implies that > it simply undoes a previous split-window
To me, it means that a window (``frame'' in our parlance) that was previously split into two or more parts now becomes "unsplit", i.e. we are left with a frame that has only one window. > > and dwelling on such > > pedantry when choosing menu names results in confusion for less > > experienced users, because you're removing helpful associations > > between menu entries in return for absolute correctness. > > ... and dwelling on "symmetry" when it conflicts with clarity is also > counter-productive. In many cases there is no perfect name that will > help all people form all the right associations; all we can do is try > to consider all the factors, and come up with something that results > in a minimum of confusion. I think "Unsplit" is the most associative name of all those suggested in this discussion. Perhaps we should take a user poll to see whose opinion is closer to them. Personally, I fully agree with Jason. _______________________________________________ Emacs-devel mailing list Emacs-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-devel
