On Monday, June 7, 2004 at 23:56:24, Masatake YAMATO wrote: > > IMHO all mirror bindings should to be the same in all *tla* > > buffers ... some time ago I bound all of them to "s" for > > "*S*ynchronize Mirror" ... now they are inconsistent again! > > I'm working on xtla-defs.el these days, especially > tla-inventory-mode-map. There are many modes in xtla, so getting > consent all binding in all modes may be difficult. Instead, I have > expressed what I think the best on tla-inventory-mode-map. Now I > have written almost all what I think the best in the mode map. (I > think tla-inventory-mode is the important mode.) > > ; BTW > ; (define-key map tla--keyvec-remove 'tla-inventory-remove-files) > ; (define-key map [?X] 'tla-inventory-delete-files) > ; > ; These two are the rest I don't think the best. It is not easy for > ; me to know the difference between delete and remove.) > > So give me the feed back about tla-inventory-mode-map.
OK. tla-inventory-delete-files is a bad name (I introducted this defun) it is no inventory command w.r.to tla, i.e. it deletes the file without invoking tla. Actually I added it in order easily delete offending files (.rej, ...) without going to dired which does not offer me the information about file types I get in the inventory mode. The binding ?X came from dired. At the moment I am not sure myself what to do here. Think about it: If you use arch-tags in the files, then "tla rm BLA" and "rm BLA" are equivalent. If the file has no tag-line and has not been added explicitly then "tla rm BLA" will complain about a missing ID. The funny thing is "tla mv" will always work, if there is ID not does not matter. Too bad that "tla rm" does not, since this would allow us to simply get rid of the defun and binding for tla-inventory-delete-files ... Maybe "tla rm" should be fixed, thus that users my simply use it as "tla mv" without caring for IDs ... > I think other modes are the next steps. Currently I don't take care > other modes. Soon these situations are solved. > > > Well, I do not want to start a binding flame war, but having > > the same prefixes for "semantically" equivalent commands is > > IMHO an good idea ... > > I, myself has not good ability to read English quickly. So It is not > easy for me to jump into the fire. However, you, don't be afraid the > flame about the binding. The important things are: > > 1. The binding should be useful for normal user. It should not > be too specific for xtla hackers. > > 2. Summarize the result of discussion in elisp in > xtla-defs.el. > docs/BINDINGS was good place to start for me. > > Again: > > but having > > the same prefixes for "semantically" equivalent commands is > > IMHO an good idea ... > > I'm happy to hear from you. > > > > BTW "Synchronize Mirror" is better than "Mirror" as an menu > > item. MIRROR is no verb (for me), i.e. it does not tell me > > what this item will do to the mirror, but SYNCHRONIZE makes > > it clear to me. > > Please, fix in your tree. I fixed this some time ago, fixing it again is tedious if someone else is reverting it again. So: 1. First agree on one way to write the menu item 2. Fix it finally and stay with it. So it is in on my mirror again. Cheers Robert
