Re: C-x 2 and C-x 3

[Lennart Borgman]

On Wed, Oct 26, 2011 at 15:38, David De La Harpe Golden
<address@hidden> wrote:
> On 26/10/11 13:20, Lennart Borgman wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Oct 26, 2011 at 14:13, Jambunathan K<address@hidden>
>>  wrote:
>>>
>>> Jambunathan K<address@hidden>  writes:
>>>
>>>>> Martin recently introduced the command names
>>>>>
>>>>>   split-window-above-each-other ->  C-x 2
>>>>>   split-window-side-by-side     ->  C-x 3
>>
>> Why do we need new names? Are not those introduced by Martin very
>> clear and good?
>>
>
> "side-by-side" isn't so bad I suppose, but "above eachother" just doesn't
> make sense. "above eachother": window A above window B AND window B above
> window A.

;-)

> Contrast "one above the other" - makes sense, and is fairly idiomatic
> english (e.g. [1]), even if a bit of a mouthful.

So then why not just rename it to split-window-one-above-the-other?
(Or something similar.)