Robert Widhopf-Fenk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Which is nice but IMHO a bit to easy. I would prefer a > yes-or-no here instead of a y-or-n when invoking it from > "These files violate naming conventions".
Will be done. > Also when removing a single file its a bit strange > to use a read-file-name prompt where I may edit the > path instead of a yes-or-no prompt. That's intentional. It's immediate to validate the read-file-name prompt (RET) if you want to do so, but if you change your mind (say, you didn't care about the position of your cursor), you still can change easily. (Did I manage ton convince you ?) > Binding up/down to prev/next should not harm? Will be done. > Well and a though: merge it into inventory mode. Well, most of the commands in tree-lint mode are just duplicate of the inventory-mode. Many commands are even just the same. (tla-generic-add-to-...) The problem is that "tla inventory" will not tell us anything about duplicate IDs, broken links, ..., so, we need to run "tla tree-lint". Having one mode for each command is in my opinion a good solution. There are a few difference that I think are good between the two modes: * tree-lint is consise. It will show only relevant files anyway, whereas inventory is designed to show a global view of the filetree. * tree-lint sorts the files by type of problem. You solve the /problem/ one by one instead of processing the /files/ one by one. Duplicating the modes means only duplicating user-commands. (usually 5-lines long functions that call the one actually doing the job, which is common to all). -- Matthieu
