From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: joakim@verona.se Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Differences between ibuffer and dired Date: Thu, 01 Jul 2010 16:34:54 +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 1277995006 20373 80.91.229.12 (1 Jul 2010 14:36:46 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 1 Jul 2010 14:36:46 +0000 (UTC) Cc: Emacs-Devel devel To: Deniz Dogan Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Thu Jul 01 16:36:45 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 1OUKsa-0006ya-Lp for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 01 Jul 2010 16:36:40 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:40783 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1OUKsZ-0006DT-RP for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 01 Jul 2010 10:36:39 -0400 Original-Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=55268 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1OUKr4-0004y4-KY for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 01 Jul 2010 10:35:07 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OUKr3-0000Dh-Pp for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 01 Jul 2010 10:35:06 -0400 Original-Received: from iwfs.imcode.com ([82.115.149.64]:44225 helo=gate.verona.se) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OUKr3-0000C8-Fs for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 01 Jul 2010 10:35:05 -0400 Original-Received: from localhost.localdomain (IDENT:1005@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by gate.verona.se (8.13.4/8.11.4) with ESMTP id o61EYssp012833; Thu, 1 Jul 2010 16:34:55 +0200 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-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.4-2.6 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:126622 Archived-At: Deniz Dogan writes: > Why are there so many inconsistencies between the ibuffer and dired > keymaps? E.g. "U" in dired unmarks all marked items, but in ibuffer it > does "replace regexp". "u" on the other hand acts the same in both > modes. > > 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? Maybe we should create an experimental "keymap consitency" branch? I also find inconsitent keymaps highly annoying. -- Joakim Verona