Am 05.06.2017 um 01:25 schrieb Eric Abrahamsen: > Nicolas Goaziou <m...@nicolasgoaziou.fr> writes: > >> Hello, >> >> Eric Abrahamsen <e...@ericabrahamsen.net> writes: >> >>> What I meant was, first ask the user for a directory, then cycle through >>> the files and ask whether to move each file to that directory. The user >>> wouldn't specify the directory itself for each file. And with >>> `map-y-or-n-p', the user can just hit "!" to take care of all files. >>> >>> Am I misunderstanding your concern? The only time the ID attachment >>> directory scheme (which is indeed opaque) would come into play is when >>> the command was called with a prefix argument -- ie, when removing a >>> custom directory, and reverting to the automatic directory. In that >>> case, the directory would be automatically derived, and the user would >>> simply be presented with the choice to move each file there, or not. >> >> When asking for each file if it should be moved or not, you can end up >> with files in both the old and the new directory. My concern is that, >> when the old directory is a default ID directory, there is no simple way >> to get the files back. So, I think we should automatically move files in >> this case. >> >> I also agree with your special case described above. > > Okay, makes sense. I hope we haven't totally scared off Florian... > > Florian, are you interested in doing another version of the patch?
Haha, I couldn't follow everything in your discussion, but I'm happy to hear, that you two deem that a worthy feature to integrate. I will try to modify my code accordingly and count on your assistance! Best, Florian
