[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: Standardizing more key bindings?
From: |
Drew Adams |
Subject: |
RE: Standardizing more key bindings? |
Date: |
Sun, 1 Nov 2020 14:27:28 -0800 (PST) |
> We should also try to call things generally the same names what other
> people have already assigned to them. That allows us to benefit from a
> shared language (a technical dialect of English) and help users that
> just start out with Emacs to do it faster and easier.
>
> If we assign a different name for a thing than most other people use,
> our name will be "fighting" the existing name in the minds of our users.
Are they in fact the same thing?
Is your argument that a REPL _is_ the same thing
in Lisp as in other languages? If so, you should
be OK with using "REPL" for Lisp too.
Or is your argument that REPL is _not_ the same
thing? If so, since others have apparently by
now co-opted the name, Lisp can switch to using
"Replstiltskin".
Ah, yes, fairy tales...
- Re: Standardizing more key bindings?, Richard Stallman, 2020/11/01
- References to "REPL" from past, Jean Louis, 2020/11/01
- Re: Standardizing more key bindings?, Stefan Monnier, 2020/11/01
- Re: Standardizing more key bindings?, Richard Stallman, 2020/11/02
- Re: Standardizing more key bindings?, Yuri Khan, 2020/11/02
- Re: Standardizing more key bindings?, tomas, 2020/11/02
- Re: Standardizing more key bindings?, Dmitry Gutov, 2020/11/02
- Re: Python REPL using standard library functions, Yuri Khan, 2020/11/02
- Re: Python REPL using standard library functions, Dmitry Gutov, 2020/11/02
Re: Standardizing more key bindings?, Dmitry Gutov, 2020/11/01