Proposed alias.

Proposed alias.

[David Kastrup]

Hello, I have quite often used `find-grep-dired' and it has been a
nuisance that the more often needed `find-grep' is not available.  I
only discovered by accident that it _does_ exist, but only under the
name `grep-find'.

Which is completely illogical.  So I propose to add an alias
`find-grep' to `grep-find'.

Any protests?

-- 
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum

Re: Proposed alias.

[Richard Stallman]

    Which is completely illogical.  So I propose to add an alias
    `find-grep' to `grep-find'.

Ok.

Re: Proposed alias.

[Romain Francoise]

David Kastrup <dak@gnu.org> writes:

> I have quite often used `find-grep-dired' and it has been a nuisance
> that the more often needed `find-grep' is not available.  I only
> discovered by accident that it _does_ exist, but only under the name
> `grep-find'.

How about adding a `grep-find-dired' alias to `find-grep-dired' as well?

-- 
Romain Francoise <romain@orebokech.com> | It was fourteen degrees below
it's a miracle -- http://orebokech.com/ | on a screeching march 23.

Re: Proposed alias.

[David Kastrup]

Romain Francoise <romain@orebokech.com> writes:

> David Kastrup <dak@gnu.org> writes:
>
>> I have quite often used `find-grep-dired' and it has been a
>> nuisance that the more often needed `find-grep' is not available.
>> I only discovered by accident that it _does_ exist, but only under
>> the name `grep-find'.
>
> How about adding a `grep-find-dired' alias to `find-grep-dired' as
> well?

Uh, that does not make sense.  One does not run `grep' piped into
`find'.  But one _does_ run `find' piped into `grep'.

The name "grep-find" is quite counterintuitive and probably only
chosen because it is in the grep package, and so the "grep-" prefix
somewhat suggested itself.  Not really a good choice in my book, but
removing the existing binding would not be nice, either.

However, I see no merit for adding the alias you suggest here.  What
would the logic behind it be?

-- 
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum

Re: Proposed alias.

[Romain Francoise]

David Kastrup <dak@gnu.org> writes:

> The name "grep-find" is quite counterintuitive and probably only
> chosen because it is in the grep package, and so the "grep-" prefix
> somewhat suggested itself.

It's not counterintuitive.  It's an extension to `grep', but it uses
find to find files recursively.  Once you're used to M-x grep RET, using
M-x grep-find RET comes naturally.

> However, I see no merit for adding the alias you suggest here.  What
> would the logic behind it be?

It does the same thing as `grep-find', but presents the results
differently.  I often find myself typing "M-x g r e p TAB" then having
to erase the command and begin with "f i n d -" to use
`find-grep-dired', because what I want to do is use grep, not use find.

-- 
Romain Francoise <romain@orebokech.com> | I've become someone else's
it's a miracle -- http://orebokech.com/ | nightmare...

Re: Proposed alias.

[Aidan Kehoe]

 Ar an séú lá is fiche de mí Feabhra, scríobh Romain Francoise: 

 > David Kastrup <dak@gnu.org> writes:
 > 
 > > The name "grep-find" is quite counterintuitive and probably only
 > > chosen because it is in the grep package, and so the "grep-" prefix
 > > somewhat suggested itself.
 > 
 > It's not counterintuitive.  It's an extension to `grep', but it uses
 > find to find files recursively.  Once you're used to M-x grep RET, using
 > M-x grep-find RET comes naturally.

And if you’re used to

  find . -type f -exec grep -nH whatever {} \; 

in the shell, M-x grep-find RET seems totally alien. IMO, of course. 

-- 
“I, for instance, am gung-ho about open source because my family is being
held hostage in Rob Malda’s basement. But who fact-checks me, or Enderle,
when we say something in public? No-one!” -- Danny O’Brien

Re: Proposed alias.

[Piet van Oostrum]

>>>>> David Kastrup <dak@gnu.org> (DK) wrote:

>DK> Romain Francoise <romain@orebokech.com> writes:
>>> David Kastrup <dak@gnu.org> writes:
>>> 
>>>> I have quite often used `find-grep-dired' and it has been a
>>>> nuisance that the more often needed `find-grep' is not available.
>>>> I only discovered by accident that it _does_ exist, but only under
>>>> the name `grep-find'.
>>> 
>>> How about adding a `grep-find-dired' alias to `find-grep-dired' as
>>> well?

>DK> Uh, that does not make sense.  One does not run `grep' piped into
>DK> `find'.  But one _does_ run `find' piped into `grep'.

>DK> The name "grep-find" is quite counterintuitive and probably only
>DK> chosen because it is in the grep package, and so the "grep-" prefix
>DK> somewhat suggested itself.  Not really a good choice in my book, but
>DK> removing the existing binding would not be nice, either.

find-grep-dired gives you a Find-style buffer and grep-find gives you a
Grep-style buffer. This is reflected in the name. If people are confused
they can make the alias themselves, in whatever direction they find useful.
-- 
Piet van Oostrum <piet@cs.uu.nl>
URL: http://www.cs.uu.nl/~piet [PGP]
Private email: piet@vanoostrum.org