Subject: bug#73954: 30.0.91; Don't hard-couple `dired-hide-details-hide-absolute-location' with `dired-hide-details-mode'

From: Drew Adams <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2024 20:47:56 +0000

> > > We just added this feature to the development branch.  Let's first
> > > collect some experience with it and see if it is popular enough to
> > > extend it in any way.  At this point, it is as possible that the
> only
> > > person to use it is the person who contributed it as it is possible
> > > that it will be the hottest new Emacs feature, so let's wait and see
> > > which is it.
> >
> > If you put it out there as it is, it'll be used as it is.
> >
> > What's the connection between wanting relative or absolute
> > names for directory headers and wanting to hide columns
> > other than the file name?
> 
> The connection is the "hide" part.  People who are likely to want to
> hide the leading directories are those who use
> dired-hide-details-mode.  To break the connection, we'd need evidence,
> not theoretical possibilities.

That's the foot in the door, if you allow it.

There are several things in Dired that can be
hidden in one way or another.  So far, they're
NOT all enabled willy nilly whenever you turn
on `dired-hide-details-mode' - fortunately.

You can hide subdirs (`$', `dired-kill-subdir',
`M-$'), lines (`dired-kill-line'), whole trees
(`dired-kill-tree'), uninteresting files
(`dired-omit-mode'), image thumbnails
(`C-t C-t'), etc.  And in Dired enhancement
libraries there are more hiding possibilities. 

Instead of requiring evidence to "break the
connection" - which is a brand new, _proposed_
connection, you ought to require evidence for
why this particular proposed hiding should be
connected to `dired-hide-details-mode'.

Just putting "hide" in the name of something
doesn't, logically, connect it to something
else that has "hide" in its name.  I'm quite
surprised to hear such a rationale from you,
frankly.