Daniel Brockman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Daniel Jensen) writes: > >> Daniel Brockman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> >>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Daniel Jensen) writes: >>> >>>> Or we could do it the Gnus way with a stack for saving >>>> sets of marks. >>> >>> Does _that_ have any use cases? >> >> I don't know, really. Maybe the step from saving one set >> of marks to saving a stack of sets is not that great. > > I suppose so. Then `U' would push and `C-u U' pop?
I don't think it is a good idea to mix unmarking with a stack growing behind the scenes, that's messy. Better to let the user manage this stack separately. How about `* k', `* y' and `* w', kind of like in Gnus? That is, if we want the stack after all. > Dired doesn't define `* i' at all, so I guess `* t' was > their first choice. On the other hand, Gnus has this, > > `M P i' > Invert the list of process marked articles > (`gnus-uu-invert-processable'). > > and I think `invert' is a better term than `toggle'. Invert it is, then. If we go with the stack commands, it is also consistent with that in the Gnus-wannabe way. _______________________________________________ bongo-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bongo-devel
