From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Dmitry Gutov Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.help Subject: Re: Reverting but keeping undo Date: Wed, 29 May 2013 07:27:05 +0400 Message-ID: <8738t6tqie.fsf@yandex.ru> References: <87mwrwede7.fsf@wanadoo.es> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1369798061 10477 80.91.229.3 (29 May 2013 03:27:41 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 29 May 2013 03:27:41 +0000 (UTC) Cc: help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org, Stefan Monnier To: Drew Adams Original-X-From: help-gnu-emacs-bounces+geh-help-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Wed May 29 05:27:40 2013 Return-path: Envelope-to: geh-help-gnu-emacs@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 1UhX35-0003J9-5k for geh-help-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Wed, 29 May 2013 05:27:39 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:41158 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1UhX34-0001js-NO for geh-help-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Tue, 28 May 2013 23:27:38 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:56241) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1UhX2m-0001hh-Tn for help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Tue, 28 May 2013 23:27:29 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1UhX2c-0007X0-8L for help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Tue, 28 May 2013 23:27:20 -0400 Original-Received: from mail-lb0-f175.google.com ([209.85.217.175]:34775) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1UhX2c-0007Vx-0g for help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Tue, 28 May 2013 23:27:10 -0400 Original-Received: by mail-lb0-f175.google.com with SMTP id v10so8364868lbd.6 for ; Tue, 28 May 2013 20:27:08 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=sender:from:to:cc:subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id :user-agent:mime-version:content-type:x-antivirus:x-antivirus-status; bh=OyWoDTya/YLQTFhKEA9yvrQGZ5XruzSN8T2BnqAFrbw=; b=ZVNphHWrG/edjshrlS5fRFtcQeR6kztJEtqkJWHlNybqaxW3BwIVibqQE10HDjjkmm mpQGza/9wqUHClAq0zktDPKr4PyWN8ONhzsZkPCjIwXPKgdIAUI0w3BCnaXQ337U1F8t rVIE4zvfrbK8GDihmhhMANi253XwI6ypL6ni8VFW69UkOuCQVJWkYhPKynmwhxP8XUDo yS8Rhxa3ZoMBzSZJKmFblhuP/buUQOOjN1aU5ocYfOSd+H8ZhwaECoRwi2e+p0swAZRs Qubd1FfsxoQzZuPxz6FDn68WR66qRNlb/9kGn82TKd7IXqziyqw0dBtc5Gtxi2vwomhV uFHQ== X-Received: by 10.112.72.132 with SMTP id d4mr602119lbv.79.1369798028825; Tue, 28 May 2013 20:27:08 -0700 (PDT) Original-Received: from SOL ([178.252.98.87]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id w20sm7239653lbi.14.2013.05.28.20.27.07 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Tue, 28 May 2013 20:27:07 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: (Drew Adams's message of "Tue, 28 May 2013 20:09:24 -0700 (PDT)") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.3.50 (windows-nt) X-Antivirus: avast! (VPS 130528-1, 29.05.2013), Outbound message X-Antivirus-Status: Clean X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] [fuzzy] X-Received-From: 209.85.217.175 X-BeenThere: help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: Users list for the GNU Emacs text editor List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: help-gnu-emacs-bounces+geh-help-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: help-gnu-emacs-bounces+geh-help-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.help:91117 Archived-At: Drew Adams writes: >> > `revert-buffer' discards undo history. >> >> FWIW, I just installed a patch in Emacs's trunk which makes that >> revert-buffer doesn't discard undo history any more. > > Hm. So `revert-buffer' no longer removes undo? That has always been a > part of what reverting means. And it is clearly intended in the code, > not just an unfortunate accident or oversight. I think it's a great change. > And why no discussion beforehand? I can't think of a great reason why > undo should *always* be removed as part of reverting (as it always has > been). But just maybe there is a good reason for doing that, at least > some or even most of the time. Why not give Richard et al the benefit > of the doubt (30 years of "classic" reverting) and make undo removal > optional, at least for a while? (Or is doubt a no-no?) Are you, personally, asking for it to be customizable? What's your use case for throwing away the undo list?