From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Eli Zaretskii Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Dired: Improve symmetry in mark/unmark commands bound to keys Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2016 18:02:28 +0300 Message-ID: <83fuomd7qz.fsf@gnu.org> References: <877fa12iyq.fsf@linux-m68k.org> <83h995ay04.fsf@gnu.org> <87y42h13pi.fsf@linux-m68k.org> <83fuopax4g.fsf@gnu.org> <87twd512pk.fsf@linux-m68k.org> Reply-To: Eli Zaretskii NNTP-Posting-Host: blaine.gmane.org X-Trace: blaine.gmane.org 1474902241 26897 195.159.176.226 (26 Sep 2016 15:04:01 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@blaine.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2016 15:04:01 +0000 (UTC) Cc: jwiegley@gmail.com, schwab@linux-m68k.org, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Tino Calancha Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Mon Sep 26 17:03:53 2016 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by blaine.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1boXRE-0003Qw-Vx for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 26 Sep 2016 17:03:25 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:45027 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1boXRD-0000HB-G8 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 26 Sep 2016 11:03:23 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:36978) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1boXQY-0000E4-VY for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 26 Sep 2016 11:02:47 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1boXQO-0003dM-Lp for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 26 Sep 2016 11:02:41 -0400 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::e]:45729) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1boXQO-0003dF-Hz; Mon, 26 Sep 2016 11:02:32 -0400 Original-Received: from 84.94.185.246.cable.012.net.il ([84.94.185.246]:1238 helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:128) (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1boXQN-0004Xu-R0; Mon, 26 Sep 2016 11:02:32 -0400 In-reply-to: (message from Tino Calancha on Mon, 26 Sep 2016 18:23:08 +0900 (JST)) X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] X-Received-From: 2001:4830:134:3::e X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.21 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: "Emacs-devel" Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:207813 Archived-At: > From: Tino Calancha > Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2016 18:23:08 +0900 (JST) > cc: Andreas Schwab , Eli Zaretskii , > tino.calancha@gmail.com, drew.adams@oracle.com, > Emacs developers > > There is only one sensical thing to do in such situation: I am with > Andreas and Drew on this, it should _unmark_. As I wrote elsewhere in this thread, I'm okay with making dired-mark-extension unmark as well, provided that doing so does not eliminate the possibility to specify the marker character interactively. We could use something similar to what "C-x C-s" does with various forms of the prefix argument, to have the argument control the command one way or the other. Or any other idea, if there are better ones. That sounds to me like a compromise solution that should leave everybody at least partially happy, no?