GNU bug report logs - #21746
24.5; purpose of dired-keep-marker-copy?

Previous Next

Full log

View this message in rfc822 format

From: Drew Adams <drew.adams <at> oracle.com>
To: Roland Winkler <winkler <at> gnu.org>
Cc: Andreas Schwab <schwab <at> linux-m68k.org>, 21746 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: bug#21746: 24.5; purpose of dired-keep-marker-copy?
Date: Sat, 24 Oct 2015 22:12:55 -0700 (PDT)

> > To distinguish/identify the files that were copied.  And to do
> > so in a way that they can be further acted on in Dired.  IOW,
> > in a Dired-consistent way.  Both parts of this are useful:
> > (1) easily see which were copied and (2) easily act on them
> > or on any subset of them.  #2 requires #1, but #1 is useful
> > on its own.
> >
> > How else could Dired distinguish the copied files?
> 
> It shouldn't.  Marks are for new actions in the future, not
> for old ones from the past.

Apparently whoever designed Dired 30-40 years ago didn't
agree.  But that's beside the point (your point, at least).
_You_ don't think marks should be used for this - fine.

Or rather, you don't think they should be used for this by
_default_.  That's it, right?

You at least don't begrudge users the ability to choose for
themselves, do you?  You wouldn't suggest we take away options
`dired-keep-marker-copy', `dired-keep-marker-hardlink', 
`dired-keep-marker-relsymlink', `dired-keep-marker-rename',
and `dired-keep-marker-symlink', would you?

If you would, i.e., even if you don't want Emacs to ever use
marks for such confirmation/indication, surely you can imagine
that it can make sense to _somehow_ confirm which files were
successfully copied (or hardlinked or symlinked or relsymlinked
or renamed).  What other way would you prefer to do that?

But if you wouldn't, and you just want to change the default
behavior, then I'd suggest that you come up with a good reason
for doing so.  Something more than the fact that such marks
"irritate" you.

> If you nonetheless like inconsistent behavior, don't make it the
> default.

Blah.  Just because _you_ never made use of such marks, that
does not mean they are not useful or their use is "inconsistent".
Far from it.  They have been used consistently for decades,
throughout Dired - witness the 5 options I just mentioned.

This use of marks conflicts with your limited notion of what
Dired marks are for.  OK.  But you really have nothing useful
to say about _this_ particular use of marks, because you have
never taken advantage of it.

It's certainly your right to go on ignoring this feature, and
if you don't want to be "irritated" by such marks, customize
the relevant options to remove them.  Easy.  End of story.

Or else come up with a good reason why your personal
preference should be foisted on everyone as a new default
behavior, reversing longstanding practice.

Previous Next

GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham, 1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd, 1994-97 Ian Jackson.