> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED], emacs-devel@gnu.org > From: David Kastrup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2005 22:05:33 +0200 > > > 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. > > If you prefer that verb, I'd rather say something like "Unsplit all" > or something like that to make obvious that it is not symmetric with > "Split".
As Jason and myself tried to explained, it _is_ symmetric, just perhaps not in the sense that you think. It makes something that was split be unsplit. And that something, which we call ``frame'' is called ``window'' elsewhere. So, "Split Window" and "Unsplit Window" is the natural choice. (We actually say "Unsplit Windows" instead, to avoid calling the frame ``a window''. But to me, that subtlety is secondary in this case; I'm quite sure many, perhaps most, users of the menu don't even notice it.) _______________________________________________ Emacs-devel mailing list Emacs-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-devel
