Duplicate bindings? Ref: Ibuffer: Mark buffers by content

Duplicate bindings? Ref: Ibuffer: Mark buffers by content

[Kaushal Modi]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 532 bytes --]

In this commit (
http://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/emacs.git/commit/?id=08974112ae68aefba658a8516c8faa3374edc924
),
I am wondering why we have two bindings "%c" and "%g" call the same command?

Why not have just one binding? That way, the user's get used to the same
binding; we won't have a split where some prefer %c and some prefer %g.
Then there are no bad feelings when/if one of the bindings might need to be
sacrificed in future for some reason.

OTOH, I am excited to try out this new feature.

Thanks!
-- 

-- 
Kaushal Modi

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 892 bytes --]

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

[Tino Calancha]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1474 bytes --]



On Tue, 5 Jul 2016, Kaushal Modi wrote:

> In this commit ( http://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/emacs.git/commit/?id=08974112ae68aefba658a8516c8faa3374edc924 ), I am wondering
> why we have two bindings "%c" and "%g" call the same command?
> Why not have just one binding? That way, the user's get used to the same binding; we won't have a split where some prefer %c and
> some prefer %g. Then there are no bad feelings when/if one of the bindings might need to be sacrificed in future for some reason.
It was a compromise solution:
I)

My preference is '%g', which is the same as 
`dired-mark-files-containing-regexp'.
That is consistent with the design of Ibuffer, as stated in the
first line of ibuffer.el:
;;; ibuffer.el --- operate on buffers like dired

There are several equivalent commands Dired-Ibuffer with the same
key bindings, for instance:
dired-mark-directories
ibuffer-mark-dired-buffers
both are bound to '*/'

That very much helps to remember then.

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'.

II)
Ibuffer has the command:
`ibuffer-filter-by-content' bound to '/c'

So i think one Ibuffer user may find easier to remember the
binding '%c' for `ibuffer-mark-by-content-regexp'.

If people agree to keep just one binding then i would suggest '%g'.
Regards,
Tino

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

[Kaushal Modi]

[-- 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 --]

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

[John Wiegley]

>>>>> Kaushal Modi <kaushal.modi@gmail.com> writes:

> 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.

I agree, although I do like the connotation of %g for "grepping by pattern".

-- 
John Wiegley                  GPG fingerprint = 4710 CF98 AF9B 327B B80F
http://newartisans.com                          60E1 46C4 BD1A 7AC1 4BA2

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

[Kaushal Modi]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 137 bytes --]

Hi Tino,

Looks like there no opposition on this proposal.
Can you please remove that extra "%c" binding?

Thanks.
-- 

-- 
Kaushal Modi

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 317 bytes --]

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

[Tino Calancha]

On Thu, 7 Jul 2016, Kaushal Modi wrote:

> Hi Tino,
> Looks like there no opposition on this proposal.
> Can you please remove that extra "%c" binding?
Sure, i am going to do it now.

I will also start looking what bindings in Ibuffer could be
synchronized with Dired as you suggested.

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

[Kaushal Modi]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 254 bytes --]

Thanks!

On Thu, Jul 7, 2016 at 10:52 AM Tino Calancha <tino.calancha@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Sure, i am going to do it now.
>
> I will also start looking what bindings in Ibuffer could be
> synchronized with Dired as you suggested.
>
-- 

-- 
Kaushal Modi

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 604 bytes --]

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

[Noam Postavsky]

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'.

+1 for just %g