From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Eli Zaretskii Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Changes for emacs 28 Date: Fri, 11 Sep 2020 16:04:48 +0300 Message-ID: <83zh5wfor3.fsf@gnu.org> References: <20200910231420.kvqg6ohvxetpup5c@Ergus> <83zh5whl5p.fsf@gnu.org> <83mu1whac7.fsf@gnu.org> <83imckh9yt.fsf@gnu.org> <83ft7oh63h.fsf@gnu.org> <20200911121919.5oljwsot4g3bm7zq@Ergus> <83a6xwh4o3.fsf@gnu.org> <20200911125744.x7at74mr4dyrcktf@Ergus> Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="36617"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" Cc: rekado@elephly.net, ghe@sdf.org, dgutov@yandex.ru, drew.adams@oracle.com, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Ergus Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Fri Sep 11 15:05:31 2020 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([209.51.188.17]) by ciao.gmane.io with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1kGik6-0009RQ-TG for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Fri, 11 Sep 2020 15:05:30 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:42842 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1kGik5-0002k9-V6 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Fri, 11 Sep 2020 09:05:29 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:43240) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1kGijV-00026M-S0 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 11 Sep 2020 09:04:53 -0400 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]:37514) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1kGijV-0005cv-8x; Fri, 11 Sep 2020 09:04:53 -0400 Original-Received: from [176.228.60.248] (port=3614 helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1kGijT-0003kJ-SA; Fri, 11 Sep 2020 09:04:52 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20200911125744.x7at74mr4dyrcktf@Ergus> (message from Ergus on Fri, 11 Sep 2020 14:57:44 +0200) X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23 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-mx.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: "Emacs-devel" Xref: news.gmane.io gmane.emacs.devel:255163 Archived-At: > Date: Fri, 11 Sep 2020 14:57:44 +0200 > From: Ergus > Cc: rekado@elephly.net, ghe@sdf.org, emacs-devel@gnu.org, > drew.adams@oracle.com, dgutov@yandex.ru > > The mode will substitute undo with undo-only. This small contradiction > will start a war here. As long as we keep this on the menu and the tool bar, there will be no reason for a "war". > >> Having undo with an undo-redo in the same "state" could be confusing as > >> the normal undo could do also redo IMO. > > > >If the user uses the menus or the tool bar, the confusion will be > >spared, right? > > > If the user expects undo-only behavior; then having our undo will be > confusing because not expecting undo becoming a redo at some point. How can it be confusing that 2 different commands produce different results? Why isn't it confusing today, when we already have these 2 commands? > IMO we should have one (undo) or the other (undo-only + undo-edor) but > not mix them by default. Whether to mix them or not is up to the user.