[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [bongo-devel] Re: Marks

From: Daniel Brockman
Subject: Re: [bongo-devel] Re: Marks
Date: Fri, 09 Feb 2007 16:34:48 +0100
User-agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/23.0.51 (gnu/linux)

address@hidden (Daniel Jensen) writes:

> Daniel Brockman <address@hidden> writes:
>> address@hidden (Daniel Jensen) writes:
>>> Or we could do it the Gnus way with a stack for saving
>>> sets of marks.
>> Does _that_ have any use cases?
> I don't know, really. Maybe the step from saving one set
> of marks to saving a stack of sets is not that great.

I suppose so.  Then `U' would push and `C-u U' pop?

Here's what Gnus has, for the record:

   `M P k'
        Push the current process mark set onto the stack and
        unmark all articles (`gnus-summary-kill-process-mark').
   `M P y'
        Pop the previous process mark set from the stack and
        restore it (`gnus-summary-yank-process-mark').
   `M P w'
        Push the current process mark set onto the stack

>>> Dired does not remove the marks, I think.  Gnus does, but
>>> as mentioned it can save marks.
>> Okay.  I intuitively think it makes more sense for Dired to
>> retain the marks that it does for Bongo.
> That's fine. As long as it's customizable, I won't complain.
>> I don't have any intuition about Gnus, because I can't really
>> imagine what people use marks in Gnus for.
> Well, moving articles for example. There's plenty you can do.
> Maybe you want to poll gnu.emacs.gnus?

Good idea.  I just did that.

>>> Looking at Gnus, I see another marking command I'd like
>>> for Bongo to have: invert marks.
>> `* i'?
> It's `* t' in Dired, t is for toggle, but `* i' is also fine.

Dired doesn't define `* i' at all, so I guess `* t' was
their first choice.  On the other hand, Gnus has this,

   `M P i'
        Invert the list of process marked articles

and I think `invert' is a better term than `toggle'.

>>> It still needs the redisplay hack I talked about, [...]
>> I can't reproduce this.
> Well, of course it works now when I've had some sleep!


>> Marking hidden tracks using `% m' does not work, as you say,
>> but I don't know if that's a bug or a feature.
> I don't understand why it shouldn't mark hidden tracks. They are not
> hidden for that reason. If you want to have it this way, it is
> inconsistent with commands that pick up marked hidden tracks.

Okay, okay.  I'm convinced. :-)

Daniel Brockman <address@hidden>

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]