[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
bug#24518: 25.2.50; dired-mark-extension with prefix arg fails
From: |
Eli Zaretskii |
Subject: |
bug#24518: 25.2.50; dired-mark-extension with prefix arg fails |
Date: |
Sat, 24 Sep 2016 15:53:03 +0300 |
> From: Tino Calancha <tino.calancha@gmail.com>
> Date: Sat, 24 Sep 2016 21:30:11 +0900 (JST)
> cc: Tino Calancha <tino.calancha@gmail.com>, 24518@debbugs.gnu.org
>
>
> On Sat, 24 Sep 2016, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
>
> > This loses the feature whereby the user could also specify the
> > character to use as the marker. Try "C-u 65 * . el RET" to see what
> > that does.
> That feature has never being available since `dired-x' was added to Emacs
> in 1994: the bug came from the very first commit. No user will miss
> that feature because nobody ever could use it.
??? The example I gave works with the unmodified sources. When used
as I've shown, there's no bug, and the command does what I expect. So
how can we be sure no one ever used it that way and won't miss this
optional behavior?
Can you explain your logic here?
> > While using the numeric code of a character sounds like a kludge, the
> > current implementation seems to do that deliberately. It might make
> > sense to use 'c' instead of 'P' there, I think, but your patch totally
> > changes the semantics of the prefix argument, so I'm not sure I can
> > endorse such a change.
> Sure, we could use 'c' and fix it. We could provide such feature not working
> in >20 years without nobody oppening a bug report. That sounds like a
> not useful feature at all.
It's an existing feature. I won't agree to removing features that
existed for the last 22 years without a very good reason. We have no
good means of finding out whether anyone out there uses this; if
someone does, removing this feature will most probably be a source of
aggravation for them.
> Believe me, using a prefix argument for unmark is very useful.
I believe you. But we will have to provide this feature without
breaking other existing features.
> For me this uniform behaviour between these two marking commands is
> a very nice thing.
I don't disagree. I just don't want to break existing features.
Thanks.
- bug#24518: 25.2.50; dired-mark-extension with prefix arg fails, Tino Calancha, 2016/09/23
- bug#24518: 25.2.50; dired-mark-extension with prefix arg fails, Eli Zaretskii, 2016/09/24
- bug#24518: 25.2.50; dired-mark-extension with prefix arg fails, Tino Calancha, 2016/09/24
- bug#24518: 25.2.50; dired-mark-extension with prefix arg fails, Andreas Schwab, 2016/09/24
- bug#24518: 25.2.50; dired-mark-extension with prefix arg fails, Eli Zaretskii, 2016/09/24
- bug#24518: 25.2.50; dired-mark-extension with prefix arg fails, Tino Calancha, 2016/09/24
- bug#24518: 25.2.50; dired-mark-extension with prefix arg fails, Eli Zaretskii, 2016/09/24
- bug#24518: 25.2.50; dired-mark-extension with prefix arg fails, Andreas Schwab, 2016/09/24
- bug#24518: 25.2.50; dired-mark-extension with prefix arg fails, Eli Zaretskii, 2016/09/24
- bug#24518: 25.2.50; dired-mark-extension with prefix arg fails, Tino Calancha, 2016/09/24
- bug#24518: 25.2.50; dired-mark-extension with prefix arg fails, Eli Zaretskii, 2016/09/24