Feature request: dired-open-marked-files

Feature request: dired-open-marked-files

[Vivek Dasmohapatra]

This request came up recently in #emacs and I'm told it has come up before:
There didn't seem to be a canned way to do this, so I came up with:

(defun dired-open-marked-files ()
   (interactive)
   (let ((distinguish-one-marked nil))
     (mapc 'find-file
           (dired-map-over-marks (dired-get-file-for-visit)
                                 current-prefix-arg))))

I haven't looked into this in any great detail, so there may be a better
or more obvious way to do it, but I thought the functionality at least
would make a handy addition to dired.

RE: Feature request: dired-open-marked-files

[Drew Adams]

> This request came up recently in #emacs and I'm told it has 
> come up before: There didn't seem to be a canned way to do
> this, so I came up with:
> 
> (defun dired-open-marked-files ()
>    (interactive)
>    (let ((distinguish-one-marked nil))
>      (mapc 'find-file
>            (dired-map-over-marks (dired-get-file-for-visit)
>                                  current-prefix-arg))))
> 
> I haven't looked into this in any great detail, so there may 
> be a better
> or more obvious way to do it, but I thought the functionality at least
> would make a handy addition to dired.

See `dired-x.el', command `dired-do-find-marked-files', bound to `F' in Dired.

Re: Feature request: dired-open-marked-files

[Miles Bader]

"Drew Adams" <drew.adams@oracle.com> writes:
> See `dired-x.el', command `dired-do-find-marked-files', bound to `F' in Dired.

Why are useful and innocuous commands like that bundled with more
controversial stuff in dired-x??

The whole concept of having all that stuff in "dired-x" seems quite
dodgy if you ask me...

-Miles

-- 
Suburbia: where they tear out the trees and then name streets after them.

RE: Feature request: dired-open-marked-files

[Drew Adams]

> > See `dired-x.el', command `dired-do-find-marked-files', 
> > bound to `F' in Dired.
> 
> Why are useful and innocuous commands like that bundled with more
> controversial stuff in dired-x??
> 
> The whole concept of having all that stuff in "dired-x" seems quite
> dodgy if you ask me...

Dunno what's so controversial. I've always wondered, on the contrary, why the
Dired X features are not loaded and made available by default.

No, I don't really want to argue about it. I've just always found Dired X useful
and, well, pretty ordinary. Controversy is not a word that would come to mind.

That's not to say you couldn't find something controversial in there. But hey,
even font-lock and transient-mark mode are controversial for some folks. One
person's benignant is another's malignant.

Re: Feature request: dired-open-marked-files

[Miles Bader]

"Drew Adams" <drew.adams@oracle.com> writes:
> Dunno what's so controversial. I've always wondered, on the contrary, why the
> Dired X features are not loaded and made available by default.

I've not examined them all in detail; let's just say that some of them seem
obviously useful and not dangerous, e.g., `dired-jump' and
`dired-do-find-marked-files' (I've seen the latter functionality requested
several times recently on #emacs), whereas others seem less useful, and
maybe don't merit a keybinding by default (e.g., `dired-man').
`dired-vm-read-only-folders' probably shouldn't be there, as VM isn't
distributed with emacs or really all that commonly used (and for a long
time, didn't even officially support non-xemacs).

But I generally agree with you.  At the least, the split into dired and
dired-x seems arbitrary and deserves re-examination.

-Miles

-- 
Joy, n. An emotion variously excited, but in its highest degree arising from
the contemplation of grief in another.

RE: Feature request: dired-open-marked-files

[Drew Adams]

> > Dunno what's so controversial. I've always wondered, on the 
> > contrary, why the Dired X features are not loaded and made
> > available by default.
> 
> I've not examined them all in detail; let's just say that 
> some of them seem obviously useful and not dangerous, e.g.,
> `dired-jump' and `dired-do-find-marked-files' (I've seen the
> latter functionality requested several times recently on
> #emacs), whereas others seem less useful, and maybe don't
> merit a keybinding by default (e.g., `dired-man').
> `dired-vm-read-only-folders' probably shouldn't be there, as
> VM isn't distributed with emacs or really all that commonly
> used (and for a long time, didn't even officially support
> non-xemacs).
> 
> But I generally agree with you.  At the least, the split into 
> dired and dired-x seems arbitrary and deserves re-examination.

Now it sounds like we agree. There are some commands that I don't find useful
(for my own needs) - I'd add `dired-info' and `dired-rmail' to those you
mentioned, for instance. Dunno whether someone else might find such commands
useful.

Rather than having a predefined command (e.g. `dired-info', `dired-rmail') - let
alone a key, that just calls an Emacs function (e.g. `info' or `rmail') on the
current file (or the marked files), it might be good to have a key/command that
reads an Emacs function (even a lambda form) to apply to the file(s) - a la `!'
but for an Emacs function instead of a shell command.

The dired/dired-x split was long ago. Looking at the Commentary, it seems it was
not a split but just a decision not to merge dired-x into dired. Back then,
things like load time and memory might also have played a non-negligible role in
such decisions. (Meme combat for dired-aux.el.)

Re: Feature request: dired-open-marked-files

[Leo]

On 2009-03-15 07:47 +0000, Drew Adams wrote:
>> I've not examined them all in detail; let's just say that some of
>> them seem obviously useful and not dangerous, e.g., `dired-jump' and
>> `dired-do-find-marked-files' (I've seen the latter functionality
>> requested several times recently on #emacs), whereas others seem less
>> useful, and maybe don't merit a keybinding by default (e.g.,
>> `dired-man').  `dired-vm-read-only-folders' probably shouldn't be
>> there, as VM isn't distributed with emacs or really all that commonly
>> used (and for a long time, didn't even officially support
>> non-xemacs).

I can see and agree with Miles's point. If the maintainer of dired can
be brought on board and a few people (that understand dired well) can
work out a plan off line as a first step to re-organise dired code, we
might be able to make a move on this.

It often happens in Emacs that tons of people are voicing their opinions
and nothing gets done in the end. I remember once RMS agreed to bring
some functions from cl.el to emacs core, which is a window of
opportunity missed.

>> But I generally agree with you.  At the least, the split into dired
>> and dired-x seems arbitrary and deserves re-examination.

-- 
.:  Leo  :.  [ sdl.web AT gmail.com ]  .: I use Emacs :.

               www.git-scm.com
    git - the one true version control system

RE: Feature request: dired-open-marked-files

[Vivek Dasmohapatra]

> See `dired-x.el', command `dired-do-find-marked-files', bound to `F' in Dired.

Aha. How embarrassing. Didn't realise I was reinventing the wheel. Thanks.

Re: Feature request: dired-open-marked-files

[Richard M Stallman]

    Dunno what's so controversial. I've always wondered, on the contrary, why the
    Dired X features are not loaded and made available by default.

Because then people would expect them to be in the Emacs Manual.

The original reason I set up dired-x.el was that there was a person
who wanted to write a lot of Dired extensions.  I did not think they
should all be standardly loaded, so I told him he could put any
features he liked into dired-x.el.

In any case, I see no reason not to move the F command to ordinary
dired.

By the way, the reason for the separation between dired.el and
dired-aux.el was to keep Emacs small, back in 1985 or so.
That reason is obsolete nowadays.