From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Kaushal Modi Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Duplicate bindings? Ref: Ibuffer: Mark buffers by content Date: Tue, 05 Jul 2016 15:41:12 +0000 Message-ID: References: NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a113dd5dcf137250536e54874 X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1467735415 7951 80.91.229.3 (5 Jul 2016 16:16:55 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 5 Jul 2016 16:16:55 +0000 (UTC) Cc: Emacs developers To: Tino Calancha Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Tue Jul 05 18:16:50 2016 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1bKT1l-0003cq-TP for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 05 Jul 2016 18:16:50 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:56114 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bKT1k-00049N-R3 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 05 Jul 2016 12:16:48 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:39392) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bKSTU-0008K2-Kv for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 05 Jul 2016 11:41:25 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bKSTT-0004MI-Ic for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 05 Jul 2016 11:41:24 -0400 Original-Received: from mail-oi0-x235.google.com ([2607:f8b0:4003:c06::235]:35035) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bKSTT-0004MC-BX for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 05 Jul 2016 11:41:23 -0400 Original-Received: by mail-oi0-x235.google.com with SMTP id r2so234500564oih.2 for ; Tue, 05 Jul 2016 08:41:23 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=nT/UFnzL2uxsCDyCGyQzhXbHG6nILgUWjI7NjXRQNqU=; b=LJRPX3YuMJPoQ8tawJAtXiBMcFtYqUCquqihz4YmscgbrlvZ0lpA9aLbGFJ6vfNsIx lLbWa43/J1v4JVHqQG397HOxr4DdlomTN/uz4bXO3yOXdpzKWaELMU1Wsl2fb35xe+BA lK++Ghnd/Obain/IpSaewBJL+v1ynjUkMeIc2mYS8z6dbn+VrWyk5/A+AG8P4dnYgglH YJHXJe6mrsoxH1svx9T2pJYwFPoytBGfi64+F+2s4IsKvKBWCTjjoLXxwSTH8gwgDkfH bqik6iUYApcOo+/RU2oerpPpJxbgveIjkjCuxAM2swSzFPClz0E3Y/Oq1/U8VXH65xgH Re+w== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=nT/UFnzL2uxsCDyCGyQzhXbHG6nILgUWjI7NjXRQNqU=; b=D02lmbN/m5B1fVXzjiV/0JjndJd30/8J4UCBxaU97vj0OBnfpovI3nZA+KvQEbsV3W 5fFKkPthTIYE0BkTJQf93TuFOG/LeCDR6PvEw5dcMu/iv3K826NzIQhnXuqhf19pc/9H I/sKcfePe7/LrERxnVaoFTc/N7OhQZciPUUd/1xzxSNTQcPyMkDWmUws3XoZlPtwpOzU PJdclRE31Q6RmIWRNAkbguQD7K9RuCAihbSEi0GqvDmGAFIl99pFPe+WQml7pW5LZ4Gj hG3rClPxDg/F57gwT+F7NSLJk71IXrGMhtehLTTMy+Cmou6rmwhn6eCqlID1gC9grl96 k2Ow== X-Gm-Message-State: ALyK8tLScFbX9Q+t2PbwJQ3aiw3hRx6i4uIM/TAQitiyq1fb5/RzOGs9ewoTJ5fWoojbIRxnXwjyO3C/eH2afA== X-Received: by 10.157.35.28 with SMTP id j28mr6648909otb.165.1467733282730; Tue, 05 Jul 2016 08:41:22 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] X-Received-From: 2607:f8b0:4003:c06::235 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:205184 Archived-At: --001a113dd5dcf137250536e54874 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 On Tue, Jul 5, 2016 at 11:31 AM Tino Calancha wrote: > If people agree to keep just one binding then i would suggest '%g'. > I appreciate the detailed reply. As I would be fine with either binding, "%g" would work for me. As this is a new command being bound to a new binding, I believe that should not be much resistance accepting that. But let's see if people on this mailing list feel otherwise. I also like the reasoning for using "%g". > Unfortunatelly, this symmetry Dired-Ibuffer is not perfect: there are Ibuffer commands with the Dired 'partner' having a different binding. For instance: `dired-mark-files-regexp' bound to '%m' `ibuffer-mark-by-name-regexp' bound to '%n'. If there are not many bindings that are inconsistent between the two, it would be nice to sync up the bindings, deprecate the out-of-sync older bindings, and then at some point in future, remove them. But while that's a long process, using "%g" would at least get us getting the dired/ibuffer bindings more in sync. -- -- Kaushal Modi --001a113dd5dcf137250536e54874 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Tue, Ju= l 5, 2016 at 11:31 AM Tino Calancha <tino.calancha@gmail.com> wrote:
If people agree to keep just one binding then i would suggest= '%g'.

I appreciate the detaile= d reply.=C2=A0 As I would be fine with either binding, "%g" would= work for me. As this is a new command being bound to a new binding, I beli= eve that should not be much resistance accepting that. But let's see if= people on this mailing list feel otherwise.

I als= o like the reasoning for using "%g".

> Unfortunatelly, this symmetry D= ired-Ibuffer is not perfect:
= there are Ibuffer commands with t= he Dired 'partner' having
a different binding. For ins= tance:
`dired-mark-files-regexp' bound to '%m'
`ibuffer-mark-by-name-regexp' bound to '%n'.= =C2=A0=C2=A0

If there are not many bindings th= at are inconsistent between the two, it would be nice to sync up the bindin= gs, deprecate the out-of-sync older bindings, and then at some point in fut= ure, remove them. But while that's a long process, using "%g"= would at least get us getting the dired/ibuffer bindings more in sync.
--

--
Kaushal Modi

--001a113dd5dcf137250536e54874--