Re: Duplicate bindings? Ref: Ibuffer: Mark buffers by content

[Kaushal Modi <kaushal.modi@gmail.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1052 bytes --]

On Tue, Jul 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 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

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 2632 bytes --]