[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: Duplicate bindings? Ref: Ibuffer: Mark buffers by content

From: Kaushal Modi
Subject: Re: Duplicate bindings? Ref: Ibuffer: Mark buffers by content
Date: Tue, 05 Jul 2016 15:41:12 +0000

On Tue, Jul 5, 2016 at 11:31 AM Tino Calancha <address@hidden> wrote:
If people agree to keep just one binding then i would suggest '%g'.

I appreciate the detailed reply.  As I would be fine with either binding, "%g" would work for me. As this is a new command being bound to a new binding, I believe that should not be much resistance accepting that. But let's see if people on this mailing list feel otherwise.

I also like the reasoning for using "%g".

> Unfortunatelly, this symmetry Dired-Ibuffer is not perfect:
there are Ibuffer commands with the Dired 'partner' having
a different binding. For instance:
`dired-mark-files-regexp' bound to '%m'
`ibuffer-mark-by-name-regexp' bound to '%n'.  

If there are not many bindings that are inconsistent between the two, it would be nice to sync up the bindings, deprecate the out-of-sync older bindings, and then at some point in future, remove them. But while that's a long process, using "%g" would at least get us getting the dired/ibuffer bindings more in sync.

Kaushal Modi

reply via email to

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