Ben Aurel gmail.com> writes:

Don't think in terms of "file". When editing a "file", you really edit
a buffer* containing the content of the file. To "close" the file
generally means to save the buffer and to kill the buffer.

If you just want to "go back" to dired, you just need to switch back to
the buffer containing the directory listing: C-x b RET

If you want to "close the file", then first save the buffer with C-x C-s
then kill the buffer with C-x k RET and you should be back to the buffer
containing the directory listing.

HTH,

* Press `C-x C-e' after the closing parenthesis to jump to the info page
describing the concept of "buffer" inside GNU Emacs:

(info "(emacs)Buffers")

I don't think its a good idea to teach or insist that people adopt
emacs's terminologies.

In particular, the term buffer is unsuitable and outdated. See the
following argument:

----------------------------

Q: The Terminology “buffer” and “keybinding” is good as they are.

A:
The terminology “buffer” or “keybinding”, are technical terms having
to do with software programing. The term “keybinding” refers to the
association of a keystroke with a command in a technical, software
application programing context. That is to say, a programer “bind” a
keystroke event to a command in a software application. The term
“buffer” refers to a abstract, temporary area for storing data, in the
context of programing or computer science.

These terms are irrelevant to the users of a software application.

Xah gmail.com> writes:

Adopting Emacs terminology is not good per se, it's good because it
helps people adopt Emacs.

You're arguing like a lawyer: since you cannot change the law itself,
you're just trying to change the spirit of the law.

Please improve Emacs if you want to, it will be more constructive than
trying to change the "spirit" behind Emacs...

Xah gmail.com> writes:

When discussing emacs? That's a rather bizarre thing to say.

On Tue, Jul 22, 2008 at 11:46, Phil Carmody
yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

In which way the use of terms like "keybinding" or "buffer" is
relevant to the *users* of a software application?

It is true that the user of a text editor works with text. It is also
true, I think, that most text is saved to a file, though nowadays I
suppose there's also a fair amount that is cut&paste'd into another
application, a web form, etc.

On Tue, Jul 22, 2008 at 10:26, Bastien Guerry altern.org> wrote:

Adapting Emacs terminology to current conventions would perhaps be
good for the very same reason.

I'm not for or against changing Emacs' terminology. I think it would
be a huge amount of work. But I don't understand why some people
reacts as if the very idea is flawed. There's nothing sacred in
"buffer" and "keybinding" and "minibuffer", just history. The change
should be susceptible to rational (if perhaps a bit pointless)
discussion, because it is not hard to find good arguments for it;
"frame/window" vs "window/pane" is a good example.

Juanma

"Juanma Barranquero" gmail.com> writes:

I, as a user of the software application called "emacs"
must be familiar with that functions are bound to what
keys in order to use that software application.

For buffers, see below.

On Tue, Jul 22, 2008 at 13:50, Juanma wrote:

I don't know. I'm not even defending the idea that "shortcut" is more
fitting. If anything, I'm defending the idea that "keybinding" is not
very good, not because of any intrinsic quality or defect of the term
"keybinding", just because it is a bit too specifically emacsy for
something that many other programs allow, under a different name. The
best name is the one the users understand more easily (whichever it
may be).

The term "workspace" fits even better, don't you think? And, what does
think the average user who does intuitively know (I believe) what a
"work space" could be, but not necessarily what a "buffer" is?

In my Castilian Spanish it'd be more like "perder generalidad", but I
get your meaning ;-)

"Juanma Barranquero" gmail.com> writes:

It's not that "keybinding" is somehow extra good, it's that "shortcut"
is unusually bad.

The name "shortcut" in most apps carries the implication that it's
somehow an unusual method of invoking something, which is only used in
rare circumstances for the absolute most heavily used commands (in these
apps, the "usual" method is a menu entry). This is not true in emacs --
keybindings are heavily used, and are "normal".

-Miles

Xah gmail.com> wrote:

I don't think its a good idea to teach or insist that people learn
French before going to Paris. French is a language that has been
adopted by France in the 1530s when there really weren't any other other
languages around, except big mainframe languages like Latin. In the
20th century English developed as a

I think it's a ridiculous idea to teach someone English before going to
Paris. Of course English is spoken pretty much everywhere in the world,
and it would arguably easier to stay in Paris if the