Re: Differences between ibuffer and dired

[joakim]

"Drew Adams" <address@hidden> writes:

>> > I would like that very much. I'm just afraid that both modes are so
>> > old that people have gotten very used to the keymaps by now and will
>> > be very reluctant to relearn them if we change them now.
>> 
>> Just prepare to make it an option if old users complain. I would guess
>> that very many are annoyed by the difference today.
>
> If you really must do this kind of thing, please keep it to a minimum.  And
> please propose and discuss each key change on its own merits.

Thats why I suggested a separate branch.  All the changes could then be
tried in the branch withouth inconveniencing users.

In the end it would be neat with some skinning facility, and keymaps
could be part of that. I dont think you could please all users. The kind
of skin to use could then be chosen on install.

I also dont like the argument that a specific keymap should be kept
because its been like that forever. I've been using Emacs since 1988 and
I would still much prefer good consistent keymaps to inconsistent ones.

> And remember that Dired is _much_ older - Ibuffer is only a few years old
> (~2007, IIUC).  Attempts to move toward consistency here should, other things
> being equal, move toward the Dired bindings, not those of Ibuffer.  
>
> To the extent that consistency here is important, Ibuffer should have dealt 
> with
> it at the time it was created.  And maybe it did: Perhaps the designers of
> Ibuffer had good reasons for any inconsistencies they introduced between 
> Ibuffer
> and Dired.  (That does not necessarily mean they were right.)  To the extent
> that any such inconsistencies were simply oversights, they can be considered
> Ibuffer bugs.
>
> Keep in mind too that it is not simply the habits of users that will be
> affected.  3rd-party libraries are likely to have adopted the bindings of one 
> or
> the other of these libraries, for consistency with it (and hence with user
> habits).
>
> For example, Bookmark+ is consistent with Dired's bindings (e.g. wrt marking 
> and
> removing marks and flags).  Dired has been present since Day One; it has many,
> many users; and it has likely influenced a good deal of non-core code by now.
> Do not gratuitously change its bindings.
>
> Finally, remember that there can be good reasons for inconsistency between
> different parts of a system.  In particular, it can be the case that 
> consistency
> (or optimization or convenience or some other quality) _within_ a part calls 
> for
> inconsistency _between_ parts.
>
> For example, the key bindings within Ibuffer need to work together and fit the
> logic and use of Ibuffer features, and that consideration could argue in favor
> of differences with Dired.  (Just hypothetical - I know little about Ibuffer
> itself.)
>
> In sum:
>
> * Treat proposed changes on a case-by-case basis, discussing them.
> * Respect Dired.  Respect time.  Respect user numbers.
> * Consider consistency wrt its scope.  And remember that it is not the only
> important quality.
>
-- 
Joakim Verona