Re: [bongo-devel] Re: Marks

[Daniel Brockman]

address@hidden (Daniel Jensen) writes:

> Daniel Brockman <address@hidden> writes:
>
>> address@hidden (Daniel Jensen) writes:
>>
>>> Daniel Brockman <address@hidden> writes:
>>>
>>>> I'm not entirely opposed to the idea, but maybe `r' should
>>>> follow the same "process/prefix convention" as `k', `c', et al.?
>>>
>>> I guess it could, but then I also think I'd want to use `r'
>>> on a single line even when there are marked tracks around.
>>
>> You could always do `1 r' or `C-SPC C-SPC n r'...
>
> Well, sure, there's always a way around things. But my idea was that,
> like `RET', `r' is something that should not operate on marked tracks.
> Obviously, it's up for debate, but I don't have much more to say about
> this. You go ahead with whatever you think is best.

I'm ambivalent.  I can imagine situations in which I would
like to use `r' on the marked tracks.  For example, I might
go through a buffer to mark all misspelled tracks, and then,
--- when I'm done with that ---, turn to correct them all.

But then again, of course, I could use `M-&' in that situation.

However, I don't think the prompt to rename another file
would be very annoying if you only wanted to rename the
first one:  Hitting `C-g' at the second prompt would keep
the first change and escape the other prompts --- right?

What about a third opinion?  Can we get one?

>>> The nice thing about `M-&' is that users can use it for
>>> things that we never thought of.  Every Bongo command will
>>> have support for marks, in a way.
>>
>> I suppose that's true.  But let's at least try to think
>> about which commands should have support for marks.
>
> I can't think of anything now.
>
> I think we have a good set of commands for marks.
> Adding more stuff in the future is easy.

I'm happy to hear that.  I think so too.

> Now, if only more people would test this ...

Yes, I too would like to see that happen.

>> Then of course there are probably other, non-Bongo-specific
>> commands which we won't ever think of, --- as you say, ---
>> but which some users may eventually want to use with `M-&'.
>
> Yes! I want to use `M-& C-x e'.

Wow... what a prospect!

Okay, then --- we totally need this feature. :-)

-- 
Daniel Brockman <address@hidden>