From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: David Kastrup Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Speed of keyboard macro execution? Date: Fri, 11 Dec 2015 00:35:15 +0100 Message-ID: <878u51swr0.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> 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=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1449790544 22958 80.91.229.3 (10 Dec 2015 23:35:44 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 10 Dec 2015 23:35:44 +0000 (UTC) Cc: Eli Zaretskii , emacs-devel@gnu.org To: "Perry E. Metzger" Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Fri Dec 11 00:35:43 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 1a7AkR-0000SA-7e for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 11 Dec 2015 00:35:43 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:44885 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1a7AkQ-0008N0-Ol for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 10 Dec 2015 18:35:42 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:49533) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1a7Ak4-0008Mg-D5 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 10 Dec 2015 18:35:21 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1a7Ak0-0002fc-Um for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 10 Dec 2015 18:35:20 -0500 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::e]:59536) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1a7Ak0-0002fR-OF; Thu, 10 Dec 2015 18:35:16 -0500 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:45112 helo=lola) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1a7Ajz-0004UP-VZ; Thu, 10 Dec 2015 18:35:16 -0500 Original-Received: by lola (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 92766DF494; Fri, 11 Dec 2015 00:35:15 +0100 (CET) In-Reply-To: (John Wiegley's message of "Thu, 10 Dec 2015 13:26:39 -0800") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/25.0.50 (gnu/linux) X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] X-Received-From: 2001:4830:134:3::e 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:196081 Archived-At: John Wiegley writes: >>>>>> 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. C-x e runs the command kmacro-end-and-call-macro (found in global-map), which is an interactive autoloaded compiled Lisp function in =E2=80=98kmacro.el=E2=80=99. It is bound to C-x e. (kmacro-end-and-call-macro ARG &optional NO-REPEAT) Call last keyboard macro, ending it first if currently being defined. With numeric prefix ARG, repeat macro that many times. Zero argument means repeat until there is an error. Repeating a keyboard macro without intervening other actions means that the macro, after achieving its changes, has to progress to the next position where executing it makes sense as its last part. This progress will often involve moving to the next line. The next _visual_ line is meaningless for that purpose in almost all situations. Under manual control, you'll just move across some continuation line. But a repeated keyboard macro is not under manual control. My claim is not about "right" but "useful" behavior. We've had one other person state that he switches off visual-line-mode always since keyboard macros would otherwise be useless. Of course that's one possibility, but visual-line-mode is actually useful for _visual_ navigation. Which is not what happens during macro execution since the computer executes the recorded keys without human intervention. Which makes sense in _similar_ but not identical situations (for identical situations, one could just copy and paste the result repeatedly). And non-identical situations will sometimes have lines wrapped visually and sometimes not without that being related to the structure of the modified text. I am surprised that I should be the only user of keyboard macros having noticed that. --=20 David Kastrup