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: Sat, 12 Dec 2015 18:42:37 +0100 Message-ID: <87vb83k1gy.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> <20151212115115.1ffeb422@jabberwock.cb.piermont.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1449942175 6833 80.91.229.3 (12 Dec 2015 17:42:55 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 12 Dec 2015 17:42:55 +0000 (UTC) Cc: John Wiegley , Eli Zaretskii , emacs-devel@gnu.org To: "Perry E. Metzger" Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sat Dec 12 18:42:55 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 1a7oC6-0007g8-3q for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sat, 12 Dec 2015 18:42:54 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:52583 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1a7oC5-0001XT-Bm for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sat, 12 Dec 2015 12:42:53 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:56119) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1a7oBs-0001X7-Lc for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 12 Dec 2015 12:42:41 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1a7oBr-0001d6-PQ for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 12 Dec 2015 12:42:40 -0500 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::e]:47971) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1a7oBq-0001cu-Ez; Sat, 12 Dec 2015 12:42:38 -0500 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:33557 helo=lola) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1a7oBp-0002IC-GV; Sat, 12 Dec 2015 12:42:37 -0500 Original-Received: by lola (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 10716DF4EE; Sat, 12 Dec 2015 18:42:37 +0100 (CET) In-Reply-To: <20151212115115.1ffeb422@jabberwock.cb.piermont.com> (Perry E. Metzger's message of "Sat, 12 Dec 2015 11:51:15 -0500") 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:196168 Archived-At: "Perry E. Metzger" writes: > 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. We wouldn't have Emacs under that premise. Joking aside I'm not that sure that there will be a lot of surprise involved here since the whole point of line-move-visual is to operate under visual feedback so people will tend to move as far as necessary. There also is the possibility of a have-one's-cake-and-eat-it-too approach: when possible macro recording omits any "purely visual" movements and replaces the recorded sequences with equivalents that don't move visually. It would be my guess that this would likely match naive expectations _better_ than straightforward recording/playback. However, it would be underhanded of the "I'll do what you want instead of what you say" kind. Switching off visual movement explicitly during recording/replay seems less sketchy in comparison. -- David Kastrup