unofficial mirror of help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
* improvements to the "lossage buffer"
@ 2019-07-30 22:56 Emanuel Berg
  2019-07-30 23:08 ` Stefan Monnier
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 15+ messages in thread
From: Emanuel Berg @ 2019-07-30 22:56 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: help-gnu-emacs

`view-lossage' seems to have improved in
a recent Emacs version upgrade, since it now
displays a neat flow of information with one
key (or one key sequence) on each row with,
even more of an improvement, the name of the
command in square brackets following the
key. E.g.,

     k [next-line]
     i [previous-line]
     k [next-line]
     RET [buffer-menu-kill-and-open]
     C-j e . [anonymous-command]
     ESC o [other-window-or-split]
     ESC o [other-window-or-split]
     ESC o [other-window-or-split]
     ESC p [delete-other-windows]
     C-o k [end-of-buffer]
     C-h l [view-lossage]

This is much better than the old version which
looked like a jungle. Not speaking literally,
that is!

To make it even clearer, why don't you consider
putting the command name in a column of its
own? This would also make the brackets
redundant. Also, isn't, e.g. M-o more used than
"ESC o", both in speech/writing _and_ in code -
and isn't it more intuitive as well? I.e.,
wouldn't this be even better - and improvement
on the improvement, if you will?

     k         next-line
     i         previous-line
     k         next-line
     RET       buffer-menu-kill-and-open
     C-j e .   anonymous-command
     M-o       other-window-or-split
     M-o       other-window-or-split
     M-o       other-window-or-split
     M-p       delete-other-windows
     C-o k     end-of-buffer
     C-h l     view-lossage

I think so!

-- 
underground experts united
http://user.it.uu.se/~embe8573
https://dataswamp.org/~incal




^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread

* Re: improvements to the "lossage buffer"
  2019-07-30 22:56 improvements to the "lossage buffer" Emanuel Berg
@ 2019-07-30 23:08 ` Stefan Monnier
  2019-07-30 23:27   ` Emanuel Berg
                     ` (2 more replies)
  0 siblings, 3 replies; 15+ messages in thread
From: Stefan Monnier @ 2019-07-30 23:08 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: help-gnu-emacs

> To make it even clearer, why don't you consider
> putting the command name in a column of its
> own?

I'm sure the maintainers would be happy to get a patch for that ;-)

Note that occasionally there can be a very long sequence of events
leading to a command, so you'd want to make sure that such an occurrence
doesn't force the first column to be insanely wide.

> Also, isn't, e.g. M-o more used than
> "ESC o", both in speech/writing _and_ in code -

`M-o` and `ESC o` aren't the same events, although usually they lead to
the same behavior.  `view-lossage` is specifically useful in order to
see the "raw" events, for those cases where the difference between `ESC
o` and `M-o` might be important, so no I think that would be a bad idea.


        Stefan




^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread

* Re: improvements to the "lossage buffer"
  2019-07-30 23:08 ` Stefan Monnier
@ 2019-07-30 23:27   ` Emanuel Berg
  2019-07-31  0:50   ` Emanuel Berg
  2019-07-31  5:04   ` Marcin Borkowski
  2 siblings, 0 replies; 15+ messages in thread
From: Emanuel Berg @ 2019-07-30 23:27 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: help-gnu-emacs

Stefan Monnier wrote:

> `M-o` and `ESC o` aren't the same events,
> although usually they lead to the
> same behavior.

Wait, that means all these years, I've not been
hitting Meta, but Escape?

Must be some configuration years ago I've
forgotten about...

Maybe I don't even have a Meta key? Reading it
now on the physical keyboard, it _does_ say
"Alt" so that even makes sense!

-- 
underground experts united
http://user.it.uu.se/~embe8573
https://dataswamp.org/~incal




^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread

* Re: improvements to the "lossage buffer"
  2019-07-30 23:08 ` Stefan Monnier
  2019-07-30 23:27   ` Emanuel Berg
@ 2019-07-31  0:50   ` Emanuel Berg
  2019-07-31  5:04   ` Marcin Borkowski
  2 siblings, 0 replies; 15+ messages in thread
From: Emanuel Berg @ 2019-07-31  0:50 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: help-gnu-emacs

BTW what does "lossage" mean?

It isn't in my dictionary, which is, ehem,
"dictd_www.dict.org_gcide"

    $ sdcv -l
    Dictionary's name   Word count
    dictd_www.dict.org_gcide    174222

and it isn't in Wiktionary either - or it
is [1] - only that seems to refer to something
else (?)


[1] https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/lossage

-- 
underground experts united
http://user.it.uu.se/~embe8573
https://dataswamp.org/~incal




^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread

* Re: improvements to the "lossage buffer"
  2019-07-30 23:08 ` Stefan Monnier
  2019-07-30 23:27   ` Emanuel Berg
  2019-07-31  0:50   ` Emanuel Berg
@ 2019-07-31  5:04   ` Marcin Borkowski
  2019-07-31  6:11     ` Emanuel Berg
  2019-07-31 12:18     ` Stefan Monnier
  2 siblings, 2 replies; 15+ messages in thread
From: Marcin Borkowski @ 2019-07-31  5:04 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Stefan Monnier; +Cc: help-gnu-emacs


On 2019-07-31, at 01:08, Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> wrote:

>> To make it even clearer, why don't you consider
>> putting the command name in a column of its
>> own?
>
> I'm sure the maintainers would be happy to get a patch for that ;-)

No need, I guess.  I'm on (relatively fresh) master and it's behaving
like this for some time already (I've just checked on emacs -Q).

While we're at that, sometimes I'd like to have also timestamps there.
But maybe that's too much.

Best,

-- 
Marcin Borkowski
http://mbork.pl



^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread

* Re: improvements to the "lossage buffer"
  2019-07-31  5:04   ` Marcin Borkowski
@ 2019-07-31  6:11     ` Emanuel Berg
  2019-07-31  7:41       ` Marcin Borkowski
  2019-07-31 12:18     ` Stefan Monnier
  1 sibling, 1 reply; 15+ messages in thread
From: Emanuel Berg @ 2019-07-31  6:11 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: help-gnu-emacs

Marcin Borkowski wrote:

> While we're at that, sometimes I'd like to
> have also timestamps there. But maybe that's
> too much.

In what format - Unix time? But what if you hit
more than one key in less than one second?

-- 
underground experts united
http://user.it.uu.se/~embe8573
https://dataswamp.org/~incal




^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread

* Re: improvements to the "lossage buffer"
  2019-07-31  6:11     ` Emanuel Berg
@ 2019-07-31  7:41       ` Marcin Borkowski
  2019-07-31  9:09         ` Emanuel Berg
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 15+ messages in thread
From: Marcin Borkowski @ 2019-07-31  7:41 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Emanuel Berg; +Cc: help-gnu-emacs


On 2019-07-31, at 08:11, Emanuel Berg <moasenwood@zoho.eu> wrote:

> Marcin Borkowski wrote:
>
>> While we're at that, sometimes I'd like to
>> have also timestamps there. But maybe that's
>> too much.
>
> In what format - Unix time? But what if you hit
> more than one key in less than one second?

How about ISO 8601?  Also, why would the same timestamp for a few
entries be a problem?  The problem I'd like to solve is "I did something
strange 10 seconds ago, I want to know what I did, I'm not interested
in stuff that happened 4 or 40 seconds ago".

IOW, even better format could be
"2019-07-31T07:40:04+00:00 (18 seconds ago)"

Best,

--
Marcin Borkowski
http://mbork.pl



^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread

* Re: improvements to the "lossage buffer"
  2019-07-31  7:41       ` Marcin Borkowski
@ 2019-07-31  9:09         ` Emanuel Berg
  2019-07-31 17:01           ` Marcin Borkowski
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 15+ messages in thread
From: Emanuel Berg @ 2019-07-31  9:09 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: help-gnu-emacs

Marcin Borkowski wrote:

> How about ISO 8601?

Yep, one of my favorite ISOs OAT, also the one
and only one ISO mentioned in the date(1) man
page.

They also mention RFC 2822 and RFC 3339 tho,
and of them three, I think I'd vote for 3339:

    2006-08-14 02:34:56-06:00

> Also, why would the same timestamp for a few
> entries be a problem? The problem I'd like to
> solve is "I did something strange 10 seconds
> ago, I want to know what I did, I'm not
> interested in stuff that happened 4 or 40
> seconds ago".
>
> IOW, even better format could be
> "2019-07-31T07:40:04+00:00 (18 seconds ago)"

Hm, I wonder what the "T" is... time?

-- 
underground experts united
http://user.it.uu.se/~embe8573
https://dataswamp.org/~incal




^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread

* Re: improvements to the "lossage buffer"
  2019-07-31  5:04   ` Marcin Borkowski
  2019-07-31  6:11     ` Emanuel Berg
@ 2019-07-31 12:18     ` Stefan Monnier
  2019-07-31 17:01       ` Marcin Borkowski
  1 sibling, 1 reply; 15+ messages in thread
From: Stefan Monnier @ 2019-07-31 12:18 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: help-gnu-emacs

> No need, I guess.  I'm on (relatively fresh) master and it's behaving
> like this for some time already (I've just checked on emacs -Q).

Good point.

> While we're at that, sometimes I'd like to have also timestamps there.

Hmm... I can't remember ever feeling like timestamps would be helpful.
Do you have some scenario in mind?


        Stefan




^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread

* Re: improvements to the "lossage buffer"
  2019-07-31 12:18     ` Stefan Monnier
@ 2019-07-31 17:01       ` Marcin Borkowski
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 15+ messages in thread
From: Marcin Borkowski @ 2019-07-31 17:01 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Stefan Monnier; +Cc: help-gnu-emacs


On 2019-07-31, at 14:18, Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> wrote:

>> No need, I guess.  I'm on (relatively fresh) master and it's behaving
>> like this for some time already (I've just checked on emacs -Q).
>
> Good point.
>
>> While we're at that, sometimes I'd like to have also timestamps there.
>
> Hmm... I can't remember ever feeling like timestamps would be helpful.
> Do you have some scenario in mind?

I wrote about it another message, though I don't consider it essential
in any way - probably not worth the effort.

Best,

-- 
Marcin Borkowski
http://mbork.pl



^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread

* Re: improvements to the "lossage buffer"
  2019-07-31  9:09         ` Emanuel Berg
@ 2019-07-31 17:01           ` Marcin Borkowski
  2019-07-31 17:14             ` Dan Sommers
  2019-07-31 17:26             ` Yuri Khan
  0 siblings, 2 replies; 15+ messages in thread
From: Marcin Borkowski @ 2019-07-31 17:01 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Emanuel Berg; +Cc: help-gnu-emacs


On 2019-07-31, at 11:09, Emanuel Berg <moasenwood@zoho.eu> wrote:

> Marcin Borkowski wrote:
>
>> How about ISO 8601?
>
> Yep, one of my favorite ISOs OAT, also the one
> and only one ISO mentioned in the date(1) man
> page.
>
> They also mention RFC 2822 and RFC 3339 tho,
> and of them three, I think I'd vote for 3339:
>
>     2006-08-14 02:34:56-06:00

Thanks, I didn't know those!

>> Also, why would the same timestamp for a few
>> entries be a problem? The problem I'd like to
>> solve is "I did something strange 10 seconds
>> ago, I want to know what I did, I'm not
>> interested in stuff that happened 4 or 40
>> seconds ago".
>>
>> IOW, even better format could be
>> "2019-07-31T07:40:04+00:00 (18 seconds ago)"
>
> Hm, I wonder what the "T" is... time?

I guess so.  This is probably the dumbest part of ISO 8601.

Best,

-- 
Marcin Borkowski
http://mbork.pl



^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread

* Re: improvements to the "lossage buffer"
  2019-07-31 17:01           ` Marcin Borkowski
@ 2019-07-31 17:14             ` Dan Sommers
  2019-07-31 17:18               ` Marcin Borkowski
  2019-07-31 17:26             ` Yuri Khan
  1 sibling, 1 reply; 15+ messages in thread
From: Dan Sommers @ 2019-07-31 17:14 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: help-gnu-emacs

On 7/31/19 1:01 PM, Marcin Borkowski wrote:
> 
> On 2019-07-31, at 11:09, Emanuel Berg <moasenwood@zoho.eu> wrote:

>>> IOW, even better format could be
>>> "2019-07-31T07:40:04+00:00 (18 seconds ago)"
>>
>> Hm, I wonder what the "T" is... time?
> 
> I guess so.  This is probably the dumbest part of ISO 8601.

Dumbest is likely subjective (and off topic!), but that T
instead of a space makes the whole timestamp one whitespace
delimited token instead of two, which can make subsequent
operations on it easier in some tools.



^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread

* Re: improvements to the "lossage buffer"
  2019-07-31 17:14             ` Dan Sommers
@ 2019-07-31 17:18               ` Marcin Borkowski
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 15+ messages in thread
From: Marcin Borkowski @ 2019-07-31 17:18 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Dan Sommers; +Cc: help-gnu-emacs


On 2019-07-31, at 19:14, Dan Sommers <2QdxY4RzWzUUiLuE@potatochowder.com> wrote:

> On 7/31/19 1:01 PM, Marcin Borkowski wrote:
>>
>> On 2019-07-31, at 11:09, Emanuel Berg <moasenwood@zoho.eu> wrote:
>
>>>> IOW, even better format could be
>>>> "2019-07-31T07:40:04+00:00 (18 seconds ago)"
>>>
>>> Hm, I wonder what the "T" is... time?
>>
>> I guess so.  This is probably the dumbest part of ISO 8601.
>
> Dumbest is likely subjective (and off topic!), but that T
> instead of a space makes the whole timestamp one whitespace
> delimited token instead of two, which can make subsequent
> operations on it easier in some tools.

Well, what would be the problem with dash or underscore?

But this is moot, since the norm is the norm anyway.

Best,

-- 
Marcin Borkowski
http://mbork.pl



^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread

* Re: improvements to the "lossage buffer"
  2019-07-31 17:01           ` Marcin Borkowski
  2019-07-31 17:14             ` Dan Sommers
@ 2019-07-31 17:26             ` Yuri Khan
  2019-08-01  1:34               ` Emanuel Berg
  1 sibling, 1 reply; 15+ messages in thread
From: Yuri Khan @ 2019-07-31 17:26 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Marcin Borkowski; +Cc: help-gnu-emacs, Emanuel Berg

On Thu, Aug 1, 2019 at 12:02 AM Marcin Borkowski <mbork@mbork.pl> wrote:

> >> How about ISO 8601?
> >
> > They also mention RFC 2822 and RFC 3339 tho,
> > and of them three, I think I'd vote for 3339:
> >
> >     2006-08-14 02:34:56-06:00
>
> Thanks, I didn't know those!

Be aware that proper RFC 3339 is a subset of ISO 8601; as such, it,
too, uses the T separator between date and time, not the space.



^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread

* Re: improvements to the "lossage buffer"
  2019-07-31 17:26             ` Yuri Khan
@ 2019-08-01  1:34               ` Emanuel Berg
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 15+ messages in thread
From: Emanuel Berg @ 2019-08-01  1:34 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: help-gnu-emacs

Yuri Khan wrote:

> Be aware that proper RFC 3339 is a subset of
> ISO 8601; as such, it, too, uses the
> T separator between date and time, not
> the space.

Only date(1) uses improper RFC 3339:

$ date --rfc-3339=date
2019-08-01

$ date --rfc-3339=seconds
2019-08-01 03:32:43+02:00

$ date --rfc-3339=ns
2019-08-01 03:32:45.480938921+02:00

-- 
underground experts united
http://user.it.uu.se/~embe8573
https://dataswamp.org/~incal




^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread

end of thread, other threads:[~2019-08-01  1:34 UTC | newest]

Thread overview: 15+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2019-07-30 22:56 improvements to the "lossage buffer" Emanuel Berg
2019-07-30 23:08 ` Stefan Monnier
2019-07-30 23:27   ` Emanuel Berg
2019-07-31  0:50   ` Emanuel Berg
2019-07-31  5:04   ` Marcin Borkowski
2019-07-31  6:11     ` Emanuel Berg
2019-07-31  7:41       ` Marcin Borkowski
2019-07-31  9:09         ` Emanuel Berg
2019-07-31 17:01           ` Marcin Borkowski
2019-07-31 17:14             ` Dan Sommers
2019-07-31 17:18               ` Marcin Borkowski
2019-07-31 17:26             ` Yuri Khan
2019-08-01  1:34               ` Emanuel Berg
2019-07-31 12:18     ` Stefan Monnier
2019-07-31 17:01       ` Marcin Borkowski

This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).