RE: suggestions on toolbar icons

[Drew Adams]

    OPEN is what the action is, not FILE. Sometimes (without file dialog or
the
    Motif dialog), you can actually open directories with open.  So FILE
    does not apply.

Yes, despite the name, `find-file-existing' can also open directories. I
still think the folder icon is misleading here.

    > Similarly, GTK_STOCK_FILE is a standard file icon. This _agrees_ with
    > my suggestion to keep this icon.

    It is not FILE, it is NEW we are using.  And should be using, as the
    action is NEW as in new buffer, not FILE.  Again, it is possible to
    make a new buffer without any file with this under the right settings.

Fine. How would I know which you use, without checking the code? FILE and
NEW are _identical_ icons; they are both standard file icons.

So, what is FILE for? Is it perhaps for opening an existing file? It is
normal that the two actions "open a new file" and "open an existing file"
have similar icons - that's just what I was suggesting we need. Similar,
yes; identical, no. File, yes (for both); folder, no.

    > Are you sure that GTK_STOCK_OPEN is
    > intended for files, not for directories?

    it is indeed used for opening existing files.

OK. Too bad.

    > if you are going to use GNOME as a litmus test, then why not
    > be consistent and use GTK_STOCK_GOTO_TOP instead of GTK_STOCK_HOME for
    > Info's Top? Likewise, why not use GTK_STOCK_GO_BACK for Back (which
is,
    > presumably, chronological) - as in Web browsers? Why use the GNOME
    > undo/redo icon (GTK_STOCK_REDO) for Back and Forward?

    HOME was used because previous Emacs versions use HOME from GTK 1.x.

Legacy.

    BACK is used in info, I presume that is what you mean. Are you
    suggesting BACK for two actions?

I said "why not use GTK_STOCK_GO_BACK for Back (which is, presumably,
chronological)."  It is used in Info for Previous, not for chronological
Back. I already pointed out that it is _not_ good to use undo/redo for
chronological moves.

    The previous version of Emacs used redo/undo, so we keep that.

Legacy. Are we tied to legacy as well as to GNOME? And if (as is the case
here) they happen to conflict? Apparently legacy wins.

To be clear: _IF_ we are to be consistent in adherence to GNOME, then we
should 1) use BACK/FORWARD for Back/Forward (chronological moves), 2) use
something else (not BACK/FORWARD and not UNDO/REDO) for structural moves,
and 3) use TOP (not HOME) for Top. Hang legacy, for things like toolbar
icons!

    > the international exit sign.

    Make that icon, so we can see what it looks like.

Attached (google for "exit"). Also attached: the information symbol (google
for "information"). Even countries that don't use international signs use
these two in airplanes, airports, and such, so I can't imagine many people
haven't seen them. Also attached: possibilities I mentioned for
"Preferences" (Customize) and "New File".

    > "Quit" is clearer (and more common) than "discard". At this level, the
    > distinction between leaving the buffer intact and killing it is not
    > important - and "discard" doesn't help with this distinction anyway.

    It is very important.  It is a great difference between just burying a
    buffer and discarding it.

Of course, but it is not a difference that is reflected in "discard" any
more than in "quit". If you really want to be a stickler about this, use
"delete". The point is that "discard" is as ambiguous as "quit", but it is
less familiar to many people.

exitsign.jpg
Description: JPEG image

information.jpg
Description: JPEG image

preferences.jpg
Description: JPEG image

new.gif
Description: GIF image