[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: [found the culprit]
From: |
Drew Adams |
Subject: |
RE: [found the culprit] |
Date: |
Fri, 16 Nov 2018 08:17:00 -0800 (PST) |
> > I agree with you about what Z should do, but there is an additional
> > reason.
> >
> > The meaning of Z is to compress or uncompress. Extracting an archive is
> > a different operation; it is semantically incoherent for Z to extract
> > an archive.
> >
> > If we want a Dired command to extract archives, we should add one.
> > It can handle .tgz files as well as .tar files and other archive types.
>
> I think this distinction (unpacking vs decompressing) is too subtle. What
> should we do on formats that support both, like zip? That is, should Z on a
> zip archive just change its compression mode to store, without extracting the
> files?
Does zip "support both"? I think that's the
difference: it does not do _each_ of those
things; it has only one action, which combines
both things.
I can't speak for Richard, but my response to
your question would be that if, as in the case
of zip, there is _no distinction_, then we need
not distinguish. We can just do what we do now:
perform that atomic action.
Call it compress/uncompress or pack/unpack or
compress+pack/unpack+uncompress, or call it
anything you like, for zip. There's nothing
wrong with letting `Z' perform that one action
and its inverse, alternately.
The problem for tar.gz and .tgz is that there
_is_ a distinction (regardless of how uncommonly
people make use of it): plain tar exists: packed
and uncompressed.
As I said, and as Eli reiterated: let's have a
separate command. As I said, I am even OK with
letting the presumably more common use case get
the `Z' binding (though that's not what I'd
prefer because of backward compatibility).
But what I don't think is a good idea is to
remove support for uncompressing tar.gz/.tgz
without unpacking. If necessary and if everyone
wants the combination operation to get the `Z'
binding, then put the presumably less-used
single operation on a different command.
- RE: [found the culprit], (continued)
- RE: [found the culprit], Drew Adams, 2018/11/14
- RE: [found the culprit] (was: [emacs -q versus empty .emacs file]), Drew Adams, 2018/11/14
- Re: [found the culprit], Davis Herring, 2018/11/14
- RE: [found the culprit], Drew Adams, 2018/11/14
- Re: [found the culprit], Mike Kupfer, 2018/11/14
- Re: [found the culprit], Richard Stallman, 2018/11/15
- Re: [found the culprit], Clément Pit-Claudel, 2018/11/15
- Re: [found the culprit], Eli Zaretskii, 2018/11/16
- Re: [found the culprit], Stefan Monnier, 2018/11/16
- Re: [found the culprit], Richard Stallman, 2018/11/16
- RE: [found the culprit],
Drew Adams <=
- Re: [found the culprit], Richard Stallman, 2018/11/16
- Re: [found the culprit], Yuri Khan, 2018/11/17
- Re: [found the culprit], Richard Stallman, 2018/11/17
- Re: [found the culprit], Clément Pit-Claudel, 2018/11/16
- Re: [found the culprit], Richard Stallman, 2018/11/16
- Re: [found the culprit], Yuri Khan, 2018/11/17
- Re: [found the culprit] (was: [emacs -q versus empty .emacs file]), Yuri Khan, 2018/11/14
- Re: [found the culprit], Andreas Schwab, 2018/11/15
- Re: [found the culprit], Yuri Khan, 2018/11/15
- Re: [found the culprit], Stefan Monnier, 2018/11/14