[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [bongo-devel] Re: Marks
From: |
Daniel Brockman |
Subject: |
Re: [bongo-devel] Re: Marks |
Date: |
Mon, 12 Feb 2007 22:11:59 +0100 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/23.0.51 (gnu/linux) |
address@hidden (Daniel Jensen) writes:
> Daniel Brockman <address@hidden> writes:
>
>> address@hidden (Daniel Jensen) writes:
>>
>>> 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.
>>
>> But what about things like `e'? If that doesn't push the
>> set to the stack before unmarking, I think the usefulness of
>> the mark stack is reduced significantly.
>
> How is usefulness of the stack reduced? This is an honest question,
> because I don't understand the meaning of what you're saying. If
> anything, the usefulness of the stack would increase in this case?
You're right. The usefulness of the mark stack would increase.
But the usefulness of the whole idea of letting the `e' command
unmark all tracks would, in my opinion, decrease.
That is, I think `* k e * y' is too inconvenient, not only
because it is long, but because it requires you to remember
to type `* k' before `e'.
Sorry I was unclear.
> I suppose this could be a customizable feature, to use the stack for
> automatically saving marks, but I really don't like it. I'd rather
> have a separate variable for automatically saved marks in that case.
I don't really like it either.
>> The `* *' command toggles between a set of marks and the
>> empty set of marks.
>
> If I understand you correctly; this is like without the stack,
> only with a handy key?
Yes, except that without it (and without the stack), there
is no key at all (handy or no).
> Sure, I think that complements the original
> suggestion (`U' and `C-u U') well.
What was the original suggestion?
That `C-u U' undo the last `U'?
>>> Invert it is, then. If we go with the stack commands, it is also
>>> consistent with that in the Gnus-wannabe way.
>>
>> I don't know why, but I kind of like monkeying after Gnus.
>> Everyone knows Gnus is cool. You know. Right?
>
> Hey, it makes sense to follow the cool kids. And Bongo is
> pretty cool already, don't you think?
It's not water-cooler cool yet. Nobody is talking about it.
It has its early adopters, and they know that it's pretty cool,
but I don't think there is much of a buzz yet.
At the rate Bongo is improving, however, eventual world
domination appears inevitable. :-)
>> Note: This still has not been implemented. We should probably
>> implement it or file a feature request in the tracker.
>
> Does it have to be anything fancier than this?
>
> (defun bongo-invert-marks ()
> "Mark unmarked tracks, and unmark marked tracks in the buffer."
> (interactive)
> (save-excursion
> (goto-char (point-min))
> (while (not (eobp))
> (if (bongo-marked-track-line-p)
> (bongo-unmark-line)
> (when (bongo-track-line-p)
> (bongo-mark-line)))
> (forward-line 1))))
No. At first sight, I thought that would be a little
inefficient, since `bongo-unmark-line' will perform a linear
search for each marked track. (It won't matter if the
tracks are marked in order, but what if they are reversed?)
However, I couldn't see any performance improvement when
using this function, which avoids the repeated linear search.
binjOuXuOrI0w.bin
Description: application/emacs-lisp
Maybe I'm confused?
By the way, what do you think of using the term `marking' to
refer to a set of marks?
Then that function would be called `bongo-invert-marking'.
--
Daniel Brockman <address@hidden>
- Re: [bongo-devel] Re: Marks, (continued)
- Re: [bongo-devel] Re: Marks, Daniel Brockman, 2007/02/06
- [bongo-devel] Re: Marks, Daniel Jensen, 2007/02/07
- Re: [bongo-devel] Re: Marks, Daniel Brockman, 2007/02/08
- [bongo-devel] Re: Marks, Daniel Jensen, 2007/02/08
- Re: [bongo-devel] Re: Marks, Daniel Brockman, 2007/02/09
- [bongo-devel] Re: Marks, Daniel Jensen, 2007/02/09
- Re: [bongo-devel] Re: Marks, Daniel Brockman, 2007/02/09
- [bongo-devel] Re: Marks, Daniel Jensen, 2007/02/09
- Re: [bongo-devel] Re: Marks, Daniel Brockman, 2007/02/12
- [bongo-devel] Re: Marks, Daniel Jensen, 2007/02/12
- Re: [bongo-devel] Re: Marks,
Daniel Brockman <=
- [bongo-devel] Re: Marks, Daniel Jensen, 2007/02/12
- Re: [bongo-devel] Re: Marks, Daniel Brockman, 2007/02/12
- [bongo-devel] Re: Marks, Daniel Jensen, 2007/02/12
- Re: [bongo-devel] Re: Marks, Daniel Brockman, 2007/02/12
- [bongo-devel] Re: Marks, Daniel Jensen, 2007/02/13
- Re: [bongo-devel] Re: Marks, Daniel Brockman, 2007/02/12
- [bongo-devel] Re: Marks, Daniel Jensen, 2007/02/12