History retains selections

[admin]

Just wondering...how would you then distinguish between having the selection retained and not having it? Cause there are times when one could want it either way...maybe I'm missing something obvious...because Don's method allows user the choice via different command, right?

Well, what's the worst potential side effect? It is probably that one would navigate to a folder and certain selections that a user may not want retained are retained. That's the same effect with retention of selection through history that we have at the moment. Sometimes I may click back and have selections retained. Other times I may want to go back so I can work on other files, not necessarily those that were previously selected. It's easier to -- if applicable -- ignore selection and loose it via a single click than go into settings and toggle an option before navigating back/forth in history. It takes at least 3 clicks (assuming F9 isn't used) to toggle that setting as opposed to just one click to loose selection -- 66% less effort

EDIT: OK, one can script it to toggle it with one click of a CTB, but that makes a GUI setting redundant

j_c_hallgren is right, and "Go to Last Target" is the perfect place for this functionality; your idea, zer0, would also conflict with "History retains selections" and the fact that tabs always retain selections. It's so perfect that I tend to remove the condition to have "History retains selections" enabled. For me it makes sense to always have the target files selected when you "Go to Last Target".

[zer0]

j_c_hallgren is right, and "Go to Last Target" is the perfect place for this functionality; your idea, zer0, would also conflict with "History retains selections" and the fact that tabs always retain selections. It's so perfect that I tend to remove the condition to have "History retains selections" enabled. For me it makes sense to always have the target files selected when you "Go to Last Target".

If "History retains selections" requirement is removed then there won't be a conflict How would tabs retaining selections conflict with my idea? I'm not disputing that incorporating it into "Go to Last Target" is a good idea, it is. But DnDing some file(s) into a folder and then double-clicking it achieves the same effect, so that's why I suggested that idea. Even if through a tweak...

[admin]

j_c_hallgren is right, and "Go to Last Target" is the perfect place for this functionality; your idea, zer0, would also conflict with "History retains selections" and the fact that tabs always retain selections. It's so perfect that I tend to remove the condition to have "History retains selections" enabled. For me it makes sense to always have the target files selected when you "Go to Last Target".

If "History retains selections" requirement is removed then there won't be a conflict How would tabs retaining selections conflict with my idea? I'm not disputing that incorporating it into "Go to Last Target" is a good idea, it is. But DnDing some file(s) into a folder and then double-clicking it achieves the same effect, so that's why I suggested that idea. Even if through a tweak...

Conflict because the history / the tab might have a different set of selections in memory -- so who wins?

[zer0]

Conflict because the history / the tab might have a different set of selections in memory -- so who wins?

Do you mean a conflict whereby a user comes out of a folder that contains a selection, DnDs a selection into that same folder and goes back into it? This would be an ideal situation for a tweak to decide which selection should be overridden.

[admin]

Conflict because the history / the tab might have a different set of selections in memory -- so who wins?

Do you mean a conflict whereby a user comes out of a folder that contains a selection, DnDs a selection into that same folder and goes back into it? This would be an ideal situation for a tweak to decide which selection should be overridden.

Exactly that situation. Also with another sequence (copy, go to target, select, go away, go back), since the last target data are held in memory until the next copy operation. So anytime later when you go into that last target folder the items from a copy operation (that might have happened hours ago) are selected. No good.

[zer0]

Exactly that situation. Also with another sequence (copy, go to target, select, go away, go back), since the last target data are held in memory until the next copy operation. So any time later when you go into that last target folder the items from a copy operation (that might have happened hours ago) are selected. No good.

That copy operation is just as likely to have happened a couple of seconds ago. In fact, I'd say that the sooner I go to the last target the more likely I am to work on files just copied.

[j_c_hallgren]

Exactly that situation. Also with another sequence (copy, go to target, select, go away, go back), since the last target data are held in memory until the next copy operation. So any time later when you go into that last target folder the items from a copy operation (that might have happened hours ago) are selected. No good.

That copy operation is just as likely to have happened a couple of seconds ago. In fact, I'd say that the sooner I go to the last target the more likely I am to work on files just copied.

I know we want to keep things simple but odd thought just occured to me: Could there be some time limit to the memory for this? Maybe that's just too weird but wanted to toss it out...