Re: [bongo-devel] Re: Marks

[Daniel Brockman]

address@hidden (Daniel Jensen) writes:

> I assume you replied to me by mistake, Daniel, so I'm
> sending this to bongo-devel now.

Oh, sorry.  Yes, my mistake.

> Daniel Brockman <address@hidden> writes:
>
>> address@hidden (Daniel Jensen) writes:
>>
>>> Now that you mention it, perhaps Bongo should have a `M-&'
>>> command as well.  For example, `% m something RET M-& r'
>>> seems reasonable.  We could steal the implementation from Gnus.
>>
>> I'm not entirely opposed to the idea, but maybe `r' should
>> follow the same "process/prefix convention" as `k', `c', et al.?
>
> I guess it could, but then I also think I'd want to use `r'
> on a single line even when there are marked tracks around.

You could always do `1 r' or `C-SPC C-SPC n r'...

> The nice thing about `M-&' is that users can use it for
> things that we never thought of.  Every Bongo command will
> have support for marks, in a way.

I suppose that's true.  But let's at least try to think
about which commands should have support for marks.

You mentioned `r'.  Looking at `M-x bongo TAB TAB', I can't
really think of any others for which it makes much sense.

Can you think of any?

Perhaps `t'/`T'.  I don't think it would be useful to let
these commands operate on marked tracks, but it might be
useful to let them operate on active regions.

We wouldn't want `y' to follow the "prefix/region/marking"
convention (which I guess would be a better name for this),
but I guess typing `M-& y' to force `y' to yank something in
multiple places makes sense...

Then of course there are probably other, non-Bongo-specific
commands which we won't ever think of, --- as you say, ---
but which some users may eventually want to use with `M-&'.
User-defined Bongo commands pose other potential use cases.

The more I think about it, the more it seems like a good idea.

>>> Interesting.  Undo for marks never crossed my mind.
>>> Frankly, it strikes me as a bit overkill.  Maybe I'd use
>>> it for undoing `U', but that's all I can think of.
>>> Or maybe I need a little persuasion?
>>
>> The main reason I consider it important is that undoing a
>> killing of all marked tracks should be possible and DTRT.
>
> The tracks will be remarked when you undo a kill?
> That's sensible.

Exactly.

>> By the way, would you be opposed to moving `U' somewhere
>> else and putting `bongo-unmark-backward' on `U' instead?
>> For example, Ibuffer has the "unmark all" command on `* *'.
>
> I kind of like `U'.  It gets my vote.

I'll leave it there, then.  (The reason why I wanted to move
it was to follow the proto-convention of having uppercase
keys do backward what the lowercase key does --- `T', `M'.)

You are probably right.  The "unmark all" command deserves a
good binding (besides, "unmark backward" already has DEL).

-- 
Daniel Brockman <address@hidden>