On Saturday, October 2, 2004 at 01:40:28, Matthieu Moy wrote: > 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 ?)
No, I am not convinced. Why not be consistent with the inventory mode? > > 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: Well you convinced me here ;c) Robert
