An item under the cursor in the target panel doesn't fall into the %a%[WU]L list if there is no mark

[Fla$her]

%R focuses solely on the inactive panel. %a%F, on the other hand, expands the list of selected files in the active panel. In my opinion, it's like comparing apples with oranges. If there were a parameter like %a%S that produced the same result as %S%R, and you would then compare %a%S with %a%F, then I would find your argument compelling.

I still haven't seen any argument for the benefit of current behavior. If for you the list result (their implementation is secondary here) when selected in one of the panels is equivalent to comparing apples and oranges, then you definitely didn't convince me with this sophism. %R doesn't focus on anything, it returns a string list of items in target panel. %a differs from it only in the role of an additional option, but for multi-line lists. The implementation is different, but the essence is the same. %a will not be able to expand the list of the active panel if there are no (marked) items and the cursor is on [..] while the marked items of the target panel list will appear there. This means that this can no longer be called an expansion, otherwise the list would not have been created or turned out to be empty.
P. S. Both apples and oranges can be added to the basket, but apples will never become oranges.

[white]

%a differs from it only in the role of an additional option, but for multi-line lists. The implementation is different, but the essence is the same.

It is not, but it is your expectation to be so. I don't share that expectation.

%a will not be able to expand the list of the active panel if there are no (marked) items and the cursor is on [..] while the marked items of the target panel list will appear there. This means that this can no longer be called an expansion, otherwise the list would not have been created or turned out to be empty.

I disagree. This case, where a non-existent list is transformed into an existing list containing marked files from the inactive panel, does not negate the role of %a as an extension. %a on itself does nothing and only extends other options.

Furthermore, if one imagines that the list of selected files is created out of one imaginary list consisting of the files in the active panel and inactive panel together, then it makes perfect sense.

[Fla$her]

It is not, but it is your expectation to be so. I don't share that expectation.

And again, empty theses that boil down to acceptance. My expectations are justified by usability, and you continue to resist without any overall benefit.

This case, where a non-existent list is transformed into an existing list containing marked files from the inactive panel, does not negate the role of %a as an extension.

Sorry, but the phrase "a non-existent list is transformed into an existing list" sounds more like a pun than a sound argument.
It was about the fact that the part that is supposedly expanding is disappearing. >>

%a%F, on the other hand, expands the list of selected files in the active panel.

There is no expansion of the selected list of the active panel in the conditions I have described. This is a fact.
We are talking about the result, not the presence of some letters in the name of the parameter. All that is as a result is a potential sequence of lists, but there is no strict binding to the active list, i.e., it's pointless to talk about expanding it. %a%F is a variable parameter, where both "apples" and "oranges" can appear, together or separately.

Furthermore, if one imagines that the list of selected files is created out of one imaginary list consisting of the files in the active panel and inactive panel together, then it makes perfect sense.

Honestly, I reread this several times, but I still didn't understand this "perfect sense". What is this imaginary list? Where does it come from and why?

[white]

My expectations are justified by usability, and you continue to resist without any overall benefit.

I disagree.

It was about the fact that the part that is supposedly expanding is disappearing. >>

%a%F, on the other hand, expands the list of selected files in the active panel.

There is no expansion of the selected list of the active panel in the conditions I have described. This is a fact.

When I test it I see something appearing, not disappearing. When using %F no list file is created. Adding %a expands the list to an existing one
Unless I'm misunderstanding your described scenario. The situation you described was this:

%a will not be able to expand the list of the active panel if there are no (marked) items and the cursor is on [..] while the marked items of the target panel list will appear there. This means that this can no longer be called an expansion, otherwise the list would not have been created or turned out to be empty.

[Fla$her]

I disagree.

Again, unfounded.

When I test it I see something appearing, not disappearing.

It disappears not from the list, but from the condition of your thesis (statement). It makes no sense to talk about the existence of a basis that doesn't exist according to the test result.
%a%F allows you to create a list if there are marks in any of the panels, which means that it's pointless to talk about expanding the list timed to only one of them.

Adding %a expands the list to an existing one

I wrote above:

We are talking about the result, not the presence of some letters in the name of the parameter.

With your approach, one could say that %U expands the ANSI list to UTF-8. But that's nonsense, isn't it? That is, we consider %UF as a single parameter. What prevents us from considering %a%F as a single entity? Nothing.

[petermad]

2Fla$her

My expectations are justified by usability

Usability for you, not necessarily for everyone.

With the current implementation, %a%F can be used also as %F, as long as no files are marked in the target panel - I find that convenient because I can use one command for two purposes - if I do want the file under the caret in the target included, I can just mark it. With you implementation I can never use %a%F as %F.

Maybe it would be better with an additional parameter (like %g) to use with the list parameters, when you always want the file (marked or not) under the caret in the target included in the list - as you seem to prefer.

Anyway this is about expectations and not about a bug - so this topic should be moved to the TC suggestions (English) section.

If I don't see any objections to that within the next 48 hours, I will move this topic to the TC suggestions section.

[white]

It disappears not from the list, but from the condition of your thesis (statement). It makes no sense to talk about the existence of a basis that doesn't exist according to the test result.

Sure it does, it is extremely common in computing to create something by adding to it even if it does not exist yet.

%a%F allows you to create a list if there are marks in any of the panels, which means that it's pointless to talk about expanding the list timed to only one of them.

It's literally what the help says: "Include parameter %a to also append selected files and directories from the target panel."

And if you interpret it, as you say, as "%a%F allows you to create a list if there are marks in any of the panels", then it is rather a stretch to find it intuitive that if no files are marked that a list is created with the file under the cursor in both panels. Because only one cursor has focus, and with default options, only one cursor is visible.

[Fla$her]

With the current implementation, %a%F can be used also as %F, as long as no files are marked in the target panel - I find that convenient because I can use one command for two purposes - if I do want te file under the caret in the target included, I can just mark it.

Can you give real examples from your own experience, otherwise it's hard for me to believe it?

With you implementation I can never use %a%F as %F.

Why can't you? All you have to do is press Home in the target panel.

Maybe it would be better with an additional parameter (like %g) to use with the list parameters, when you always want the file (marked or not) under the caret in the target included in the list - as you seem to prefer.

Similarly, you can suggest a parameter that will ignore the file under the cursor for %R, %S, %F, %L, %d, etc.
As I said, all such parameters must have a common correspondence. There should be no parameter that stands out from the long-accepted approach.

Anyway this is about expectations and not about a bug - so this topic should be moved to the TC suggestions (English) section.

This topic is a continuation of the one already in the suggestions section. There is no point in duplicating. If there were lists for the target panel, then the need for %a would disappear, it would become a rudiment. Here we are talking about a discrepancy. Re-read my arguments carefully, please.

[Fla$her]

It's literally what the help says: "Include parameter %a to also append selected files and directories from the target panel."

I don't see anything about the expansion here, it's just your interpretation.

And if you interpret it, as you say, as "%a%F allows you to create a list if there are marks in any of the panels", then it is rather a stretch to find it intuitive that if no files are marked that a list is created with the file under the cursor in both panels.

You've turned everything upside down. The above quote is a description of the problem, and you are trying to evaluate the exact opposite from these words, i.e. what fits the general logic.

Because only one cursor has focus, and with default options, only one cursor is visible.

We're walking in circles. I gave you a clear argument with %R, where exactly the same thing happens.

[petermad]

2Fla$her

All you have to do is press Home in the target panel.

And all you have to do if you want a single file from the target in the list is to mark it - I find that easier than to move the caret to [..] - and I might have the caret on the file for a reason.

Similarly, you can suggest a parameter that will ignore the file under the cursor for %R, %S, %F, %L, %d, etc.

We already have that - it is %Y. I am not talking about ignoring the file under the cursor if other files are marked - in that case it is always ignored (also on the source side and also without %Y). I am talking about whether or not a file under the cursor should be ignored if no files are marked at the target side.

[white]

Because only one cursor has focus, and with default options, only one cursor is visible.

We're walking in circles. I gave you a clear argument with %R, where exactly the same thing happens.

Then why do you continue to walk in circles? You already gave that argument and I already responded to that.

[petermad]

2Fla$her

This topic is a continuation of the one already in the suggestions section.

If you are referring to the suggestion you link back to in your first post (https://www.ghisler.ch/board/viewtopic.php?p=455605#p455605), then that suggestion has nothing to to with whether or not %a should cause the file under the cursor in an otherwise unmarked target should be added to the list.

The author of that request even writes:

For example, I'm noticing that when there's nothing selected on the source file side, it just begins with the target list. I guess that's to be expected.

%a works exactly as described by Ghisler here https://www.ghisler.ch/board/viewtopic.php?p=456524#p456524 - hence no bug.

Also - if you think that this topic is a continuation of sirksel's suggestion, then why did you not just continue in sirksel's topic - instead of deciding that there is a bug because of a behavior that YOU consider to be a discrepancy.

[white]

Moderator message from: white » 2024-06-24, 19:19 UTC

Moved 3 posts starting with this post into topic
» ENG: Small talk / Geplauder / Forum Moderation / Spam-Report / Off-Topic

[Fla$her]

2petermad

And all you have to do if you want a single file from the target in the list is to mark it - I find that easier than to move the caret to [..] - and I might have the caret on the file for a reason.

I only refuted your thesis about "never".
And why is it easier? By pressing one key instead of another? In the method you described, there is no less a problem with additional deselection, which was not intended, in target panel.

We already have that - it is %Y.

Oh, well, yes. But this example is from the same discrepancy basket. Why is %Y needed for all such parameters in the active panel, but not for %a in the target panel? There is no common sense in this.

I am talking about whether or not a file under the cursor should be ignored if no files are marked at the target side.

I understand. This is what the topic is about. I don't think we should look for an additional option for the discrepancy. Inconsistencies need to be eliminated, it is impossible to get used to them, they create problems. I want to process the selected files in two panels, regardless of their marking, but it turns out that with %a, the selected file counts only on one side, which is not the case with %R. This is definitely nonsense.

If you are referring to the suggestion you link back to in your first post (https://www.ghisler.ch/board/viewtopic.php?p=455605#p455605), then that suggestion has nothing to to with whether or not %a should cause the file under the cursor in an otherwise unmarked target should be added to the list.

The link leads to a post where the problem itself is revealed when trying to solve the issue in an alternative way. I have already written about the suggestion itself. Have you read this? —

If there were lists for the target panel, then the need for %a would disappear, it would become a rudiment.

The author of that request even writes:

Actually, this quote is about the lack of selection in the active panel, not in the target one.

%a works exactly as described by Ghisler here https://www.ghisler.ch/board/viewtopic.php?p=456524#p456524 - hence no bug.

Many inconsistencies conceived by the author were discussed in this section and corrected even after many years. The current contradiction is not inferior to many of these topics.

Also - if you think that this topic is a continuation of sirksel's suggestion, then why did you not just continue in sirksel's topic - instead of deciding that there is a bug because of a behavior that YOU consider to be a discrepancy.

Because it is pointless to discuss it there. There is a specific suggestion, with which I immediately agreed. Bugs/inconsistencies are most often fixed by the next beta, and new options are added after a long time or never at all (which is also possible since the subject of lists for the target panel is not something that the author could not help thinking about for so many years). You know this as well as I do.

Then why do you continue to walk in circles? You already gave that argument and I already responded to that.

And I replied to your response. Your thesis was reduced to the fact that the parameters differ in optionality, but this does not negate the analogy in what you are writing about now. That is, this is equally true for %a and %R, but for some reason, in relation to %R, you have been satisfied with the current situation for many years. For me, such ambiguity is a mystery.

[white]

For me, such ambiguity is a mystery.

Different things behave different for different reasons. As explained, I see these things as different. So, as I mentioned, I disagree with your argument and have different expectations. That you still find it a mystery is fine with me. I don't need to convince you of anything. Similarly, you don't need to convince me of anything. It's your job to convince the author that it concerns a bug. It only matters that he understands our arguments.