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: Thu, 10 Dec 2015 21:36:14 +0100 Message-ID: <87twnqrqgx.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> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1449779811 15784 80.91.229.3 (10 Dec 2015 20:36:51 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 10 Dec 2015 20:36:51 +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 Thu Dec 10 21:36:50 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 1a77wv-0000Zs-NT for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 10 Dec 2015 21:36:25 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:44394 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1a77wv-0001Jp-50 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 10 Dec 2015 15:36:25 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:42447) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1a77wq-0001JZ-RJ for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 10 Dec 2015 15:36:21 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1a77wp-0000w5-Of for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 10 Dec 2015 15:36:20 -0500 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::e]:57318) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1a77wp-0000w1-LW; Thu, 10 Dec 2015 15:36:19 -0500 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:42902 helo=lola) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1a77wm-0002vR-VI; Thu, 10 Dec 2015 15:36:18 -0500 Original-Received: by lola (Postfix, from userid 1000) id A6AE2DF4FA; Thu, 10 Dec 2015 21:36:14 +0100 (CET) In-Reply-To: (John Wiegley's message of "Thu, 10 Dec 2015 12:18:58 -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:196062 Archived-At: John Wiegley writes: >>>>>> Perry E Metzger writes: > >> On Thu, 10 Dec 2015 22:00:05 +0200 Eli Zaretskii wrote: >>> > From: David Kastrup >>> > So I think it would make excellent sense to disable visual >>> > positioning modes while recording and replaying keyboard macros. >>> >>> No, I think you are wrong. Think C-n and C-p again. > > Recording a macro has the value that it does what the user would have > done, just automated. If you disable visual positioning, then in many > cases it no longer does what I would have done manually. Visual positioning makes no sense without visual feedback. Can you show a single example of a task to be done by a keyboard macro where visual positioning would _help_ achieve that task rather than sabotage it? Just one? For your argument's sake? I certainly get the ugliness of changing a setting during macro record/replay. No question about that. But the alternative is keyboard macros being essentially useless because their effects on the text become unpredictable. Yes, they are then perfectly equivalent to pressing the same keys outside of macro recording/replay, but since the pressing of the keys is done based on visual feedback, there is just no point in recording key presses during visual movement mode and replay them at some other buffer position, or even the same buffer position but with different visuals. In this case, I prefer "wrong" to "useless". -- David Kastrup