[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: C-x 2 and C-x 3
From: |
Alan Mackenzie |
Subject: |
Re: C-x 2 and C-x 3 |
Date: |
Thu, 27 Oct 2011 16:04:21 +0000 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) |
Hello, Drew.
On Thu, Oct 27, 2011 at 08:38:50AM -0700, Drew Adams wrote:
> > Copying is an implementation detail.
> No, it has nothing to do with implementation. It is a user-level operation.
> Just like using `C' in Dired is a user-level copy operation.
> > The purpose of the command is to make a new window.
> Almost, but not quite. The purpose of the command, what the command does, is
> to
> make a new window...that is a copy of the selected window: same buffer.
> The command copies the selected window. ...
That's a rather special use of the word "copy". There is no copying,
just that you only see half of what you use to, but you see it twice - a
bit like some fancy mirror trick. In fact, the second "copy" after C-x
2, is useless. Only after scrolling does it make any sense.
> It does _not_ just make a new window. It makes a new window with the
> same buffer (and same window-point value etc.). And that's the point.
Not really. The point is to make a new window. Tell me, what buffer
are you going to display in this new window? By default it's the same
buffer. I suppose you could imagine displaying the _next_ buffer or
*scratch*, but the same buffer is as good as any.
A lot of the time, before the development of C-x 4 ..., you'd be
switching to a different buffer immediately anyway, just as even today
you might do C-x 2 C-x o M-x man.
--
Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).
- Re: C-x 2 and C-x 3, (continued)
- Re: C-x 2 and C-x 3, David De La Harpe Golden, 2011/10/26
- Re: C-x 2 and C-x 3, Stefan Monnier, 2011/10/26
- Re: C-x 2 and C-x 3, Lluís, 2011/10/26
- Re: C-x 2 and C-x 3, Juri Linkov, 2011/10/27
- Re: C-x 2 and C-x 3, Lluís, 2011/10/27
- RE: C-x 2 and C-x 3, Drew Adams, 2011/10/27
- Re: C-x 2 and C-x 3, Jambunathan K, 2011/10/27
- RE: C-x 2 and C-x 3, Drew Adams, 2011/10/27
- Re: C-x 2 and C-x 3, Stephen J. Turnbull, 2011/10/27
- RE: C-x 2 and C-x 3, Drew Adams, 2011/10/27
- Re: C-x 2 and C-x 3,
Alan Mackenzie <=
- Re: C-x 2 and C-x 3, Jambunathan K, 2011/10/27
- Re: C-x 2 and C-x 3, Lennart Borgman, 2011/10/27
- Re: C-x 2 and C-x 3, Jambunathan K, 2011/10/27
- Re: C-x 2 and C-x 3, Thien-Thi Nguyen, 2011/10/27
- Re: C-x 2 and C-x 3, John Yates, 2011/10/27
- Re: C-x 2 and C-x 3, Stephen J. Turnbull, 2011/10/28
- Re: C-x 2 and C-x 3, Dave Abrahams, 2011/10/28
- Re: C-x 2 and C-x 3, Juri Linkov, 2011/10/28
- Re: C-x 2 and C-x 3, Chong Yidong, 2011/10/28
- Re: C-x 2 and C-x 3, Tim Cross, 2011/10/28