[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: C-x 2 and C-x 3
|
From: |
Eli Zaretskii |
|
Subject: |
Re: C-x 2 and C-x 3 |
|
Date: |
Wed, 26 Oct 2011 04:21:19 -0400 |
> From: Chong Yidong <address@hidden>
> Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2011 10:30:22 +0800
>
> How about split-window-by-width or split-window-by-height?
IMO, that's as ambiguous as the original names.
- 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, Lennart Borgman, 2011/10/26
- Re: C-x 2 and C-x 3, Deniz Dogan, 2011/10/26
- Re: C-x 2 and C-x 3, David De La Harpe Golden, 2011/10/26
- Re: C-x 2 and C-x 3, Juri Linkov, 2011/10/27
- RE: C-x 2 and C-x 3, Drew Adams, 2011/10/26
- Re: C-x 2 and C-x 3, Lennart Borgman, 2011/10/26
- RE: C-x 2 and C-x 3, Drew Adams, 2011/10/26
- Re: C-x 2 and C-x 3, David De La Harpe Golden, 2011/10/26
- Re: C-x 2 and C-x 3, Dave Abrahams, 2011/10/26
Re: C-x 2 and C-x 3,
Eli Zaretskii <=
Re: C-x 2 and C-x 3, Ulrich Mueller, 2011/10/26
Re: C-x 2 and C-x 3, martin rudalics, 2011/10/26