GNU bug report logs - #14914
24.3.50; Menu item for `dired-hide-details-mode' should be `Hide/Show Details'

Previous Next

To add a comment to this bug, you must first unarchive it, by sending
a message to control AT debbugs.gnu.org, with unarchive 14914 in the body.
You can then email your comments to 14914 AT debbugs.gnu.org in the normal way.

Toggle the display of automated, internal messages from the tracker.

Message #5 received at submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Drew Adams <drew.adams <at> oracle.com>
To: bug-gnu-emacs <at> gnu.org
Subject: 24.3.50; Menu item for `dired-hide-details-mode' should be `Hide/Show
 Details'
Date: Fri, 19 Jul 2013 17:02:53 -0700 (PDT)

The menu item *toggles* the state.  It should not be called `Hide
Details'.

Either it should be called `Hide/Show Details' or the name should change
dynamically between `Hide Details' and `Show Details', depending on the
current state.



In GNU Emacs 24.3.50.1 (i686-pc-mingw32)
 of 2013-07-14 on ODIEONE
Bzr revision: 113423 lekktu <at> gmail.com-20130715004922-i67tg2ois14h3fpm
Windowing system distributor `Microsoft Corp.', version 6.1.7601
Configured using:
 `configure --prefix=/c/Devel/emacs/binary --enable-checking=yes,glyphs
 CFLAGS='-O0 -g3' CPPFLAGS='-Ic:/Devel/emacs/include'
 LDFLAGS='-Lc:/Devel/emacs/lib''

Message #8 received at 14914 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Leo Liu <sdl.web <at> gmail.com>
To: Drew Adams <drew.adams <at> oracle.com>
Cc: 14914 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#14914: 24.3.50;
 Menu item for `dired-hide-details-mode' should be `Hide/Show Details'
Date: Sat, 20 Jul 2013 10:35:14 +0800

On 2013-07-20 08:02 +0800, Drew Adams wrote:
> Either it should be called `Hide/Show Details' or the name should change
> dynamically between `Hide Details' and `Show Details', depending on the
> current state.

Is 'Toggle Details' acceptable?

Leo

Message #11 received at 14914 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Drew Adams <drew.adams <at> oracle.com>
To: Leo Liu <sdl.web <at> gmail.com>
Cc: 14914 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: RE: bug#14914: 24.3.50; Menu item for `dired-hide-details-mode'
 should be `Hide/Show Details'
Date: Fri, 19 Jul 2013 21:12:01 -0700 (PDT)

> > Either it should be called `Hide/Show Details' or the name should change
> > dynamically between `Hide Details' and `Show Details', depending on the
> > current state.
> 
> Is 'Toggle Details' acceptable?

How do you toggle a detail?  What does it mean?

`Toggle Hiding Details' (or `Toggle Showing Details') might be OK.

`Show/Hide Details' reflects the `Show/Hide' submenu of `Options'.

`Hide/UnHide Details' reflects item `Hide/UnHide Subdir' of the `Subdir'
menu in Dired (but UnHide is bad as written, for two reasons).

I prefer `Show/Hide Details' or `Hide/Show Details' (or `Show or Hide
Details' etc.), but the main point is that this item either shows hidden
details or hides the details if shown.  It does not just hide the details.

Message #14 received at 14914 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Jambunathan K <kjambunathan <at> gmail.com>
To: Leo Liu <sdl.web <at> gmail.com>
Cc: 14914 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, Drew Adams <drew.adams <at> oracle.com>
Subject: Re: bug#14914: 24.3.50;
 Menu item for `dired-hide-details-mode' should be `Hide/Show Details'
Date: Sat, 20 Jul 2013 09:47:30 +0530

Leo Liu <sdl.web <at> gmail.com> writes:

> On 2013-07-20 08:02 +0800, Drew Adams wrote:
>> Either it should be called `Hide/Show Details' or the name should change
>> dynamically between `Hide Details' and `Show Details', depending on the
>> current state.
>
> Is 'Toggle Details' acceptable?

[✓] Show details

> Leo

Message #17 received at 14914 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Drew Adams <drew.adams <at> oracle.com>
To: Jambunathan K <kjambunathan <at> gmail.com>, Leo Liu <sdl.web <at> gmail.com>
Cc: 14914 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: RE: bug#14914: 24.3.50; Menu item for `dired-hide-details-mode'
 should be `Hide/Show Details'
Date: Sat, 20 Jul 2013 08:46:56 -0700 (PDT)

> [✓] Show details

I almost suggested that too (but with title case: `Show Details').
I probably should have mentioned it.  I did not because of the
considerations below, but I'm glad you have brought it up now.

I have no objection to that, but in that case we should perhaps
do likewise for other toggles in Dired, such as `Toggle Image
Thumbnails in This Buffer' (which also happens to be a bad name,
IMO).

Another consideration is that the use of a check box for a toggle
often corresponds to an actual user option, i.e., a variable that
one can customize.  And in fact, I believe, that was the original
sense of  menu `Options', hence the name.  There are notable
exceptions, such as `Tool-bar' on `Options' > `Show/Hide', which
do not correspond to options (and which perhaps should not be on
menu `Options'?).

Another consideration is perhaps that, so far, menu `Options',
which is a main place where we use such check boxes, seems to
be limited to global toggles, not buffer-local ones (didn't check
them all though).  Likewise menu `Printing', which is another
place where we use the check boxes heavily.  However, Dired menu
`Immediate' does have the buffer-specific `Toggle Image
Thumbnails in This Buffer'.

I don't know what the general policy/guideline is, if there is
one, wrt the use of check boxes.  Should they be limited to
user options?  Should they be limited to behavior that is global
and not buffer-specific?  Dunno.

Should we perhaps have a visual convention that makes clear
whether a particular toggle (a) is global or local and (b)
corresponds to an option or not?  Without that, users need to
use `C-h k' or mouseover :help to get more info about an item,
and unfortunately such info does not always answer the question
because it was written in a context where the answer was clear
enough without being explicit.

In sum, I would be OK with a `Show Details' check box on the
Dired `Immediate' menu, provided those who set the guidelines ;-)
think it fits wrt the above considerations (i.e., that it is
OK that it is for a minor mode, with no associated user option,
and that it is OK that it is buffer-local).

I agree that having a check box makes clear that the item is
a toggle.  That is a decided advantage, making for quicker
locating and identifying.  My only hesitation is the lack of
clarity for users wrt whether the toggle is for a customizable
variable and whether it is buffer-local or global.

Thanks again for bringing up the check-box question in this context.

Message #20 received at 14914 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Drew Adams <drew.adams <at> oracle.com>
To: Stefan Monnier <monnier <at> iro.umontreal.ca>
Cc: 14914 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, 15799 <at> debbugs.gnu.org,
 Jambunathan K <kjambunathan <at> gmail.com>
Subject: RE: bug#15799: 24.3.50; dired-hide-details-mode:  Provide default key
 binding
Date: Mon, 4 Nov 2013 09:35:50 -0800 (PST)

> Thanks.  For #14914, there's no doubt for me that we should use
> a "[✓] Hide details" menu entry.

Sounds good to me (except it should be title case: `Hide Details').

> >> Also, wouldn't it make sense to try and bring hide-details
> >> "closer" to the dired-omit facilities?
> >
> > Definitely not.  No relation.  Completely different uses.
> 
> Of course, they're different, but I assume the @ was chosen because
> it's also used for things like outline-minor-mode, i.e. for other
> features that hide parts of the buffer.

`@' was proposed by Jambunathan, not I.  I have no special objection
to `@' instead of `(', however.

But I'm not convinced that it is good to confuse hiding stuff in
Dired with outline-minor-mode hiding.

> So, maybe @ should be a prefix key for "hiding stuff", in which we
> can place key bindings for "omit" and for "details".

I don't object to that.  As long as the two, hiding columns and
hiding rows, are kept clear and separate, no problem.

But there is really more to it than that.  There are at least these
hide/show commands in Dired:

$    (`dired-hide-subdir')
M-$  (`dired-hide-all')
(    (`dired-hide-details-mode')
M-o  (`dired-omit-mode')

It is good that each of these is quick, but yes, we could put them
all on a prefix key.  In that case, `M-o', `M-$', and `$' are also
good candidates for the prefix key.

We could have, for example:

M-o s  (`dired-hide-subdir')       - `s' for subdi
M-o S  (`dired-hide-all')          - `S' for subdirs
M-o c  (`dired-hide-details-mode') - `c' for columns
M-o r  (`dired-omit-mode')         - `r' for rows

No Shift key needed for them, except for the one that boosts `s'.

FWIW, Dired+ adds these commands, which could also be added to the
list, perhaps with these bindings:

M-o m  (`diredp-omit-marked')      - `m' for marked
M-o u  (`diredp-omit-unmarked')    - `u' for unmarked

Here are their (trivial) definitions:

(defun diredp-omit-marked ()
  "Omit lines of marked files.  Return the number of lines omitted."
  (interactive)
  (let ((old-modified-p  (buffer-modified-p))
        count)
    (when (interactive-p) (message "Omitting marked lines..."))
    (setq count  (dired-do-kill-lines nil "Omitted %d line%s."))
    (set-buffer-modified-p old-modified-p) ; So no `%*' appear in mode-line.
    count))

(defun diredp-omit-unmarked ()
  "Omit lines of unmarked files.  Return the number of lines omitted."
  (interactive)
  (let ((old-modified-p  (buffer-modified-p))
        count)
    (dired-toggle-marks)
    (message "Omitting unmarked lines...")
    (setq count  (diredp-omit-marked))
    (dired-toggle-marks)                ; Marks all except `.', `..'
    (set-buffer-modified-p old-modified-p) ; So no `%*' appear in mode-line.
    count))

Message #23 received at 14914 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Jambunathan K <kjambunathan <at> gmail.com>
To: Drew Adams <drew.adams <at> oracle.com>
Cc: 15799 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, 14914 <at> debbugs.gnu.org,
 Stefan Monnier <monnier <at> iro.umontreal.ca>
Subject: Re: bug#14914: bug#15799: 24.3.50;
 dired-hide-details-mode:  Provide default key binding
Date: Wed, 06 Nov 2013 13:01:21 +0530

>> Of course, they're different, but I assume the @ was chosen because
>> it's also used for things like outline-minor-mode, i.e. for other
>> features that hide parts of the buffer.
>
> `@' was proposed by Jambunathan, not I.  I have no special objection
> to `@' instead of `(', however.

I do object to '('.  

Partly because I am tempted to think ')' will undo whatever it's other
pair did.

> But there is really more to it than that.  There are at least these
> hide/show commands in Dired:
>
> $    (`dired-hide-subdir')
> M-$  (`dired-hide-all')
> (    (`dired-hide-details-mode')
> M-o  (`dired-omit-mode')
>
> It is good that each of these is quick, but yes, we could put them
> all on a prefix key.  In that case, `M-o', `M-$', and `$' are also
> good candidates for the prefix key.

$ is indeed better than @.  Remember `$' is used in conjunction with
selective display.  

> We could have, for example:
>
> M-o s  (`dired-hide-subdir')       - `s' for subdi
> M-o S  (`dired-hide-all')          - `S' for subdirs
> M-o c  (`dired-hide-details-mode') - `c' for columns
> M-o r  (`dired-omit-mode')         - `r' for rows

I object to M-o.  The verb `Omit' is generally not used.  It has bad
connotations.  (My mom will spank me if I omitted something)

Let's omit omit and stick with show or hide.

Message #28 received at 14914-done <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Stefan Kangas <stefan <at> marxist.se>
To: Drew Adams <drew.adams <at> oracle.com>
Cc: 14914-done <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#14914: bug#15799: 24.3.50; dired-hide-details-mode: Provide
 default key binding
Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2020 01:41:52 -0700

Drew Adams <drew.adams <at> oracle.com> writes:

>> Thanks.  For #14914, there's no doubt for me that we should use
>> a "[✓] Hide details" menu entry.
>
> Sounds good to me (except it should be title case: `Hide Details').

This is now the case on current master, so I'm closing this bug.

Previous Next

GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham, 1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd, 1994-97 Ian Jackson.