From xemacs-m  Wed Jun 11 18:46:43 1997
Received: from MIT.EDU (SOUTH-STATION-ANNEX.MIT.EDU [18.72.1.2])
	by xemacs.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id SAA10143
	for <xemacs-beta@xemacs.org>; Wed, 11 Jun 1997 18:46:42 -0500 (CDT)
Received: from SUNDIAL.MIT.EDU by MIT.EDU with SMTP
	id AA26492; Wed, 11 Jun 97 19:46:44 EDT
Received: by sundial.MIT.EDU.MIT.EDU (8.8.5/4.7) id MAA13284; Wed, 11 Jun 1997 12:25:18 GMT
Date: Wed, 11 Jun 1997 12:25:18 GMT
Message-Id: <199706111225.MAA13284@sundial.MIT.EDU.MIT.EDU>
From: David Bakhash <cadet@MIT.EDU>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: message/rfc822
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
To: xemacs-beta@xemacs.org
Subject: dired keybindings
X-Mailer: VM 6.31 under 20.2 XEmacs Lucid

> ** In Dired, the & command now flags for deletion the files whose names
> suggest they are probably not needed in the long run.
>
> Do we want so synch with this?  It looks reasonable enough, but I'm
> not a diehard dired user, so I'm hardly the one to judge.

What's the reason for changine the mark to the `*' stuff?  Is there a
reason?  I don't mind learning new bindings, but I *am* a hardcore
dired/ftp user, so if the new bindings make sense, and they're synched
with FSF, then it's probably a good idea.  But why is this an issue?  Is 
it that dired is developed mostly for emacs and XEmacs just makes ports
it over?  I'm lost.

Also, what will happen to bindings for `m' and `u' if you change the
mark commands to start w/ `*'?  Will they be nullified, or will they
mean something else?

