From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Stefan Monnier Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Differences between ibuffer and dired Date: Fri, 23 Jul 2010 17:40:15 +0200 Message-ID: References: NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1279899631 28820 80.91.229.12 (23 Jul 2010 15:40:31 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 23 Jul 2010 15:40:31 +0000 (UTC) Cc: Emacs-Devel devel To: Deniz Dogan Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Fri Jul 23 17:40:30 2010 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OcKMP-0008SW-Qz for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 23 Jul 2010 17:40:30 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:44521 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1OcKMP-0005WS-C8 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 23 Jul 2010 11:40:29 -0400 Original-Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=36290 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1OcKMI-0005VU-Fb for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 23 Jul 2010 11:40:23 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OcKMH-0000J4-Gw for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 23 Jul 2010 11:40:22 -0400 Original-Received: from chene.dit.umontreal.ca ([132.204.246.20]:54118) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OcKMH-0000Ik-D2 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 23 Jul 2010 11:40:21 -0400 Original-Received: from ceviche.home (vpn-132-204-232-78.acd.umontreal.ca [132.204.232.78]) by chene.dit.umontreal.ca (8.14.1/8.14.1) with ESMTP id o6NFeGM1012278; Fri, 23 Jul 2010 11:40:16 -0400 Original-Received: by ceviche.home (Postfix, from userid 20848) id 70C2D660D2; Fri, 23 Jul 2010 17:40:15 +0200 (CEST) In-Reply-To: (Deniz Dogan's message of "Thu, 1 Jul 2010 15:49:38 +0200") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.0.50 (gnu/linux) X-NAI-Spam-Score: 0 X-NAI-Spam-Rules: 1 Rules triggered RV3584=0 X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 3) X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:127707 Archived-At: > In my opinion the modes are so similar in their use cases that users > should expect the keybindings to be much more similar than they are > today, at least for such basic things such as unmarking items. So why > are there so many differences between them? We should create a new parent major mode for such things which can then be used by vc-dir, dired, ibuffer, gnus-summary, ... Stefan "Not volunteering"