From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: "Perry E. Metzger" Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Speed of keyboard macro execution? Date: Sat, 12 Dec 2015 11:51:15 -0500 Message-ID: <20151212115115.1ffeb422@jabberwock.cb.piermont.com> References: <20151209163954.0cefcc7f@jabberwock.cb.piermont.com> <87si3bcltu.fsf@isaac.fritz.box> <20151209180343.5a67c0e7@jabberwock.cb.piermont.com> <83r3iu9rvp.fsf@gnu.org> <20151210120051.6be8201f@jabberwock.cb.piermont.com> <87k2omciy2.fsf@isaac.fritz.box> <20151210123312.39c417c9@jabberwock.cb.piermont.com> <83lh929omw.fsf@gnu.org> <87k2omta6x.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> <83d1ue9lns.fsf@gnu.org> <87fuzat7ot.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> <837fkm9ire.fsf@gnu.org> <20151210151631.3b07c461@jabberwock.cb.piermont.com> <87twnqrqgx.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> <87h9jqrpa9.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1449939093 19022 80.91.229.3 (12 Dec 2015 16:51:33 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 12 Dec 2015 16:51:33 +0000 (UTC) Cc: Eli Zaretskii , David Kastrup , emacs-devel@gnu.org To: John Wiegley Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sat Dec 12 17:51:33 2015 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1a7nON-0001Ru-MZ for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sat, 12 Dec 2015 17:51:31 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:52352 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1a7nON-0005nO-0R for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sat, 12 Dec 2015 11:51:31 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:46638) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1a7nOI-0005n0-Tu for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 12 Dec 2015 11:51:27 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1a7nOH-0007YR-Vd for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 12 Dec 2015 11:51:26 -0500 Original-Received: from hacklheber.piermont.com ([2001:470:30:84:e276:63ff:fe62:3400]:42504) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1a7nOE-0007KF-Mi; Sat, 12 Dec 2015 11:51:22 -0500 Original-Received: from snark.cb.piermont.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hacklheber.piermont.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CFEB61AF; Sat, 12 Dec 2015 11:51:15 -0500 (EST) Original-Received: from jabberwock.cb.piermont.com (jabberwock.cb.piermont.com [10.160.2.107]) by snark.cb.piermont.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 964912DE13C; Sat, 12 Dec 2015 11:51:15 -0500 (EST) In-Reply-To: X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] X-Received-From: 2001:470:30:84:e276:63ff:fe62:3400 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:196166 Archived-At: On Thu, 10 Dec 2015 13:26:39 -0800 John Wiegley wrote: > >>>>> David Kastrup writes: > > > So you don't have an example where having macros > > recorded/replayed using visual movements would be useful, but you > > would not want it different on principle. > > I still don't see this as significant enough even to warrant a > customization variable. Is there a clear example of why a change > should be made? So far all I've heard are arguments about what > seems "right" to one person. If it isn't made the default, I think it is fairly harmless to have a variable you could set to trigger David's proposed behavior. I doubt many people are going to use it, but if they do, they've explicitly chosen they want it, and it isn't in general our business to tell people how they should enjoy editing. Emacs is a highly programmable system, and if this the (non-default!) behavior is what someone wants, well, adding it means that people don't have to write the hack to do it on their own. That said, the default has to follow the principle of least surprise I think. Perry -- Perry E. Metzger perry@piermont.com