From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Dmitry Gutov Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Changes for emacs 28 Date: Sat, 12 Sep 2020 00:00:48 +0300 Message-ID: <92d20285-2141-2ef3-da09-432aeb3ecec4@yandex.ru> 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> <83zh5wfor3.fsf@gnu.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="19373"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.10.0 Cc: rekado@elephly.net, ghe@sdf.org, drew.adams@oracle.com, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Eli Zaretskii , Ergus Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Fri Sep 11 23:01:50 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 1kGqB4-0004xC-2R for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Fri, 11 Sep 2020 23:01:50 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:37614 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1kGqB2-0002Rl-TW for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Fri, 11 Sep 2020 17:01:48 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:36370) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1kGqAA-0001uc-3b for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 11 Sep 2020 17:00:54 -0400 Original-Received: from mail-lj1-x229.google.com ([2a00:1450:4864:20::229]:40503) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1kGqA7-0004nd-L1; Fri, 11 Sep 2020 17:00:53 -0400 Original-Received: by mail-lj1-x229.google.com with SMTP id s205so13576169lja.7; Fri, 11 Sep 2020 14:00:50 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=sender:subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language:content-transfer-encoding; bh=kjH4X57xIUMYo05jiK6Y+ifghMpy/PPTXjb5qFtZ1ow=; b=oEgkTbyGQXoAI4OpL7wOMUv/lZr3qD2sCOSH/IdEqvFIPAPYPT7CFKsYMNTc2cHp7P 3WgPKsCa54SB/2lHrNdsJgWZM9xxfYuo/OQXbyw6uW0o4u9HtQ/kF6iM0Ekarr2lyuEY t/jdQDis9J0BSq3XCf6duE3uOZFrRXyw2r7Su9arherv+PEHbeymzV8mU0pTMt87W+bf CRyQLHNRRjDEOxuCE7qOe/yVc+g4o4uRJnOu4Je+YqEuU6RxBVbxcdWXhv/4/42FyjID tN3+LLoibKlEmfzRtXY7kS1iHWlsI++SU3L6PvpkWWkwcndEFzcC0qkNT3TWLCXSrJAR MZHQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:sender:subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id :date:user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language :content-transfer-encoding; bh=kjH4X57xIUMYo05jiK6Y+ifghMpy/PPTXjb5qFtZ1ow=; b=mNNEnr3YlcrqP7PsucjKiPccan5Pxntrfs0PxHcZD4tQflqPzBvskJgXaiXokuSNWH BwvK3OZ/GBK9Mke6bG/8lct1qykt1EknTIN8sYNrXfR7Ktjte0Pm6D/fc1yADHgQdH6K JfKyDHQwJRxPiUMNvP12ugqCuiPnDh67dLkwOgP3i4NFZNpL+hbdhJa+ud3EUDSIxaIu lvw53tV/DkDYqlJzrbEEabYrQiHDmEbBqDdWr15P277FB9/wVcY9M8VEcDdQsAfZLD0b AGZhIyoLpChedr9xnIxRZVeqOUCh7a+TUIzbwNuRhXTKAsVhygQX6FErygxECwUlnhLF hnrQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533wba1l2Xcw1FkxQ7nGnqJ1tt0Vgj25hrLWqe8LBaarFNIQKc2D 34XB7ixmELR+C0pHHygJo/I= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyGSwgP1Ds5tRKbBIPI6P43aA79KYawU4ZVhGZk9V5VwNida5KW/bVgf6FBTHv1OLH+m26iiQ== X-Received: by 2002:a2e:a41b:: with SMTP id p27mr1480600ljn.75.1599858049419; Fri, 11 Sep 2020 14:00:49 -0700 (PDT) Original-Received: from [192.168.0.104] ([94.229.108.16]) by smtp.googlemail.com with ESMTPSA id u10sm575757lfr.33.2020.09.11.14.00.48 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 11 Sep 2020 14:00:48 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <83zh5wfor3.fsf@gnu.org> Content-Language: en-US Received-SPF: pass client-ip=2a00:1450:4864:20::229; envelope-from=raaahh@gmail.com; helo=mail-lj1-x229.google.com X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: No matching host in p0f cache. That's all we know. X-Spam_score_int: -39 X-Spam_score: -4.0 X-Spam_bar: ---- X-Spam_report: (-4.0 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.25, NICE_REPLY_A=-2.469, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action 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:255241 Archived-At: On 11.09.2020 16:04, Eli Zaretskii wrote: >> 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". So there will be contradiction between the menu and the keyboard? >>>> 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? The menu item doesn't exactly say which command it is invoking. >> 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. This has been true before the menu items were added, and will continue to be true if/when we change the default bindings. So I think that statement is missing the point: we should endeavor for predictable and consistent sets of menu items, key bindings, and other features.