Daniel Brockman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Daniel Jensen) writes: > >> Daniel Brockman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> >>> 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'...
Well, sure, there's always a way around things. But my idea was that, like `RET', `r' is something that should not operate on marked tracks. Obviously, it's up for debate, but I don't have much more to say about this. You go ahead with whatever you think is best. >> 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. I can't think of anything now. I think we have a good set of commands for marks. Adding more stuff in the future is easy. Now, if only more people would test this ... > 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-&'. Yes! I want to use `M-& C-x e'. _______________________________________________ bongo-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bongo-devel
