From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.ciao.gmane.io!not-for-mail From: Jean Louis Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.bugs Subject: bug#41097: 28.0.50; (dired-toggle-marks) not working after copy Date: Sun, 10 May 2020 22:54:09 +0300 Message-ID: <20200510195409.GD6298@protected.rcdrun.com> References: <83y2pzdgt7.fsf@gnu.org> <20200510145503.GE28606@protected.rcdrun.com> <83sgg7ddtz.fsf@gnu.org> <20200510153311.GH28606@protected.rcdrun.com> <83r1vrdbc0.fsf@gnu.org> <6bc132d3-2d2d-4eb3-86dd-b818c1b856a2@default> <83mu6fd9q6.fsf@gnu.org> <83k11jd8bs.fsf@gnu.org> <744818d3-e904-43a1-a3c1-a0a4a550ada1@default> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="ciao.gmane.io:159.69.161.202"; logging-data="60786"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" User-Agent: Mutt/1.14.0 (2020-05-02) Cc: michael_heerdegen@web.de, 41097@debbugs.gnu.org, tomasn@posteo.net, arthur.miller@live.com To: Drew Adams Original-X-From: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Sun May 10 21:55:10 2020 Return-path: Envelope-to: geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane-mx.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([209.51.188.17]) by ciao.gmane.io with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1jXs2Y-000FiY-F0 for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane-mx.org; Sun, 10 May 2020 21:55:10 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:35722 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1jXs2X-0005qc-AC for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane-mx.org; Sun, 10 May 2020 15:55:09 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:53626) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1jXs2Q-0005qQ-Rx for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sun, 10 May 2020 15:55:02 -0400 Original-Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.43]:38940) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1jXs2Q-00008R-I7 for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sun, 10 May 2020 15:55:02 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1jXs2Q-0005J7-HS for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sun, 10 May 2020 15:55:02 -0400 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Resent-From: Jean Louis Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Sun, 10 May 2020 19:55:02 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 41097 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs Original-Received: via spool by 41097-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B41097.158914047120344 (code B ref 41097); Sun, 10 May 2020 19:55:02 +0000 Original-Received: (at 41097) by debbugs.gnu.org; 10 May 2020 19:54:31 +0000 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:50486 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1jXs1v-0005I4-1E for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 10 May 2020 15:54:31 -0400 Original-Received: from stw1.rcdrun.com ([217.170.207.13]:51549) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1jXs1t-0005Hq-Sr for 41097@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 10 May 2020 15:54:30 -0400 Original-Received: from localhost ([::ffff:41.210.154.28]) (AUTH: PLAIN securesender, TLS: TLS1.2,256bits,ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) by stw1.rcdrun.com with ESMTPSA id 00000000002F286B.000000005EB85BE9.00004B46; Sun, 10 May 2020 12:54:16 -0700 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <744818d3-e904-43a1-a3c1-a0a4a550ada1@default> X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list X-BeenThere: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org List-Id: "Bug reports for GNU Emacs, the Swiss army knife of text editors" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: "bug-gnu-emacs" Xref: news.gmane.io gmane.emacs.bugs:180029 Archived-At: * Drew Adams [2020-05-10 22:23]: > > > Please reconsider. > > > > Done. > > > > > Can you point to any other occurrence of referring > > > to some mark other than `D' as a "flag" - anywhere > > > in the Dired doc or code? All marks, including > > > `D', are marks. Only `D' is called "flag". > > > > "Flag" is just a word. > > So is "mark". What is your point? Only `D' has > been called a flag by Emacs, until now. > > Dired actions affect marks differently, depending > on the mark. There are 3 kinds of actions - 3 > groups of marks: > > 1. Actions that affect only mark `*'. > 2. Actions that affect only mark `D'. > 3. Actions that affect all marks (including > `*' and `D'). > > By "affect" I mean either act on a file line that > has such a mark or add such a mark to a file line. > > How to refer to these actions, these groups > of marks? Up until your change: > > 1. Emacs has always referred to #1 as "mark", > not making specific mention that only `*' > is affected. This is the most common kind of > action and the most common kind of mark used. > > 2. Emacs has always, everywhere, referred ONLY > to #2 as "flag", including the specific action > of UNflagging as "unflag". That said, see #3. > > 3. Emacs has always, for actions that affect ALL > marks or ANY mark (including `D' and `*'), > referred to #3 as "mark". > > Could Emacs have spoken differently? > Yes, here's a possibility (not taken by Emacs): > > 1. Refer ONLY to #1 (`*') as "mark". > > 2. Refer to #2 as "flag `D'", "flag for deletion". > > 3. Refer to #3 as "marks and flags" and "mark > or flag", and point out specifically that `C', > `D', etc. are "flags", whereas `*' is the only > "mark". > > Either of those approaches, the one Emacs has > used or the other, is doable, reasonable. > > But what you've done is instead inconsistent. > In a single doc string you've changed the > terminology, to refer to `C' as a "flag". No > such change for other non-`*' marks. > > That means that doc for #3 is not only wrong > but self-contradictory, as it still talks about > the existence of multiple kinds of "mark" - > different characters. > > You say you've reconsidered. I'd ask that you > reconsider again. And please elaborate on your > "'Flag' is just a word" response to my question: > > Can you point to any other occurrence of > referring to some mark other than `D' as a > "flag" - anywhere in the Dired doc or code? > > That's not a rhetorical question. I know of > no such occurrence. Do you? I think what I've > said above is correct, regarding #1, #2, #3. > > Words matter. I gave a reason why I think > Emacs chose to use "flag" for `D' - and only > for `D': to flag something is to draw special > attention to it. Your are rights that word matters. Then if I may ask, why is then "flag" introduced instead of "Delete mark"? How "flag" makes the deleting action more clear? It does not, if you ask me. Definition of a mark is very clear. Wordnet: 2. (4) marker, marking, mark -- (a distinguishing symbol; "the owner's mark was on all the sheep") flag on the other hand is not so clear. It does not provide definition for your intended action to draw special attention to it. In fact, marking something is drawing special attention to it already. So "flag" is for me less clear. Why should "flag" be used for "delete", why not "Delete" or "Mark delete"? Now note that the option "flag" is under the menu "Mark", so flag is a mark, it is adding to confusion. In my opinion, the Menu "Mark" should not have "flag", but rather "Delete" or "Delete mark": - Delete auto-save files - Delete backup files - Delete garbage files - Delete by extension or - Mark to delete auto-save files - Mark to delete backup files - Mark to delete garbage files - Mark to delete by extension Those are clear to me in that sense. Now these are not clear to me: - Flag extension -- how that can be clear what it does? Sure that I will find after some time what is meant, but I am saying, it is confusing and not user friendly. The Wordnet does not indicate that "flag" has the definition that you want, in the manner to distinguish it from "mark". It says "provide with a flag" and flag would be what? I will just put those definitions here down that could apply for some user. >From WordNet (r) 3.0 (2006) [wn]: flag n 1: emblem usually consisting of a rectangular piece of cloth of distinctive design 4: a rectangular piece of fabric used as a signalling device [syn: {flag}, {signal flag}] 2: provide with a flag; "Flag this file so that I can recognize it immediately" 5: become less intense [syn: {ease up}, {ease off}, {slacken off}, {flag}] So to flag in the meaning to provide with a flag, the Wordnet definition gives me only that, thus definitions are missing. I understand your point, I am just saying is not so easy to understand with "flag". With "mark" it is very easy to understand it: mark 1 definition found >From WordNet (r) 3.0 (2006) [wn]: mark 2: a distinguishing symbol; "the owner's mark was on all the sheep" [syn: {marker}, {marking}, {mark}] v 1: attach a tag or label to; "label these bottles" [syn: {tag}, {label}, {mark}] 5: make or leave a mark on; "the scouts marked the trail"; "ash marked the believers' foreheads" Now the definition you wanted to squeeze out of the "flag" to draw special attention to it, is actually under "mark" -- I speak only for Wordnet. to flag vs. to mark, those are synonyms. It is only in Emacs terminology that "flag" became something extra, however, it does not help the user to understand by reading from the menu that "flag" means "to mark for deletion". Jean