RE: [External] : Re: Dired C idea

[Drew Adams]

>> But perhaps I don't understand the suggestion well.
>> If this behavior is added, is there really no longer
>> any use for the current `C' behavior?
> 
> I see no reason to prefer ordinary copying to rsync.

Ever?  Or do you see any relative advantages to each?

> If you see a reason, could you tell us what it is?

I didn't say anything about preferring ordinary
copying.

Is there a reason that Unix or GNU/Linux `cp' still
exists (if it does)?  Would that reason be relevant
here (just asking)?

All I asked was why replace the command bound to
`C'.  Why not add rsync copying and (if it deserves
a binding) give it a different key from `C'?

I'm not arguing against adding rsync copying, or
against binding it to a key, or even giving it the
`C' binding.  I only asked why it should be given
the `C' binding.

We didn't give async shell commands the `!' Dired
binding.  We instead added the `&' binding.  If
you feel this is different, OK; what are the
reasons for that?

Are you also proposing to remove ordinary copying
altogether?  If not, then the only question (so
far) is about key bindings.