Re: dired-mark

[Andreas Röhler]

Am Donnerstag, 29. November 2007 18:07 schrieb Drew Adams:
> > > But what if you really intend to mark "." or ".."?
> >
> > That's precisely the question.
>
> Yes.
>
> > I can't imagine any case I would need it. However, as
> > experience tells our imagination runs short occasionally...
>
> It doesn't matter if you can't imagine a case where you would need it.
>
> As long as users can operate on marked files and directories, someone will
> want to, well, mark `.' or `..' and then operate on it.
>
> Madame Lambda or Mister X might define a command that prints each marked
> file and all files in each marked directory. Or search them. Or do whatever
> to/with them. And s?he might use that command on `.' or `..' as well as on
> other marked directories.
>
> There is no reason that users shouldn't be able to use `dired-mark' to mark
> `.' and `..'. If you don't want to mark them, then don't. If you have code
> that does something to all marked files and dirs, but you don't want to
> treat `.' and `..', then exclude those in your special-purpose code.
>
> Wrt subdirs, it is only when point is on a subdir header line that
> `dired-mark' does not mark the subdir's `.' or `..' - in that case, it
> marks all files and directories _contained_ in the subdir. `dired-mark'
> always marks `.' and `..' whenever they are targeted (e.g. cursor on that
> line).
>
> That's TRT, IMO. Acting on a directory is not (necessarily) the same thing
> as acting on everything in it. It is useful to be able to mark and act on
> any directory, including `.' and `..'.
>

I have no definite opinion in that point, just
raised the question from my scenario.

Should you know a precise case where marking the "."
and ".." in the dired-buffer are useful, I would like
to read about that.

Andreas Röhler