Re: make undo operate as in (no flames please) vim

Re: make undo operate as in (no flames please) vim

[Xah Lee]

On Jan 24, 4:43 pm, Harry Putnam <rea...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> I've used emacs for a goodly number of yrs now.  I'd say though that
> my usage is considerably less sophisticated than many users here.
>
> One thing I've actually come to dread is using undo.  I've never taken
> the time to get this setup in some way that seems more useful to me.
> I always just go for the `C-x u' repeatedly or else preface with some
> number (C-u 20 C-x u) to get close if lots of undos are needed.
>
> I often hit `C-x-u' (forgetting to release the C-x part) which brings
> me to `upcase-region', which I keep disabled; that means I'm whisked
> to a lengthy message about using `upcase-region' and generally
> completely disrupting what I was doing.
>
> This is of my own making and not a fault of emacs, but still I'd like
> to have the undo behavior I find in vim.  It seems way closer to what
> I usually want.  Where I press some keycombo and a whole sentence or
> whatever is undone.  Instead of `C-x u' repeatedly to undo the same
> line or even paragraph of type.
>
> I don't want to go to viper-mode. That seems a bit drastic, but can
> anyone tell me how to setup `undo' to behave more like the undo found
> in vim?

Here's what i do:

(global-unset-key (kbd "C-/")) ; undo
(global-unset-key (kbd "C-_")) ; undo

;; undo and redo
(global-set-key (kbd "M-Z") 'redo)
(global-set-key (kbd "M-z") 'undo)

you'll need to install the redo mode. You can find it on
emacswiki.org .

i use a full ergonomic based shortcut you might be interested.
http://code.google.com/p/ergoemacs/

not sure exactly what vi undo behaves... perhaps you want emacs to
lengeth each steps it consider for undo... don't have answer for that
off hand. But if viper mode does it, you can easily customize emacs to
do that without viper too.

  Xah
∑ http://xahlee.org/

☄

Re: make undo operate as in (no flames please) vim

[Andreas Politz]

Xah Lee wrote:
> On Jan 24, 4:43 pm, Harry Putnam <rea...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>> I've used emacs for a goodly number of yrs now.  I'd say though that
>> my usage is considerably less sophisticated than many users here.
>>
>> One thing I've actually come to dread is using undo.  I've never taken
>> the time to get this setup in some way that seems more useful to me.
>> I always just go for the `C-x u' repeatedly or else preface with some
>> number (C-u 20 C-x u) to get close if lots of undos are needed.
>>
>> I often hit `C-x-u' (forgetting to release the C-x part) which brings
>> me to `upcase-region', which I keep disabled; that means I'm whisked
>> to a lengthy message about using `upcase-region' and generally
>> completely disrupting what I was doing.
>>
>> This is of my own making and not a fault of emacs, but still I'd like
>> to have the undo behavior I find in vim.  It seems way closer to what
>> I usually want.  Where I press some keycombo and a whole sentence or
>> whatever is undone.  Instead of `C-x u' repeatedly to undo the same
>> line or even paragraph of type.
>>
>> I don't want to go to viper-mode. That seems a bit drastic, but can
>> anyone tell me how to setup `undo' to behave more like the undo found
>> in vim?
> 
> Here's what i do:
> 
> (global-unset-key (kbd "C-/")) ; undo
> (global-unset-key (kbd "C-_")) ; undo
> 
> ;; undo and redo
> (global-set-key (kbd "M-Z") 'redo)
> (global-set-key (kbd "M-z") 'undo)
> 
> you'll need to install the redo mode. You can find it on
> emacswiki.org .
> 
> i use a full ergonomic based shortcut you might be interested.
> http://code.google.com/p/ergoemacs/
> 
> not sure exactly what vi undo behaves... perhaps you want emacs to
> lengeth each steps it consider for undo... don't have answer for that
> off hand. But if viper mode does it, you can easily customize emacs to
> do that without viper too.
> 
>   Xah
> ∑ http://xahlee.org/
> 
> ☄

Remember, vi was that mode beast. It is easier to undo the correct choice
of characters, if you tell the editor where it starts and ends (via mode
switch).

-ap

Re: make undo operate as in (no flames please) vim

[Harry Putnam]

Andreas Politz <politza@fh-trier.de> writes:

> Xah Lee wrote:

[...]

>> Here's what i do:

[...]

>>   Xah
>> ∑ http://xahlee.org/

For some reason Xahlee's post is missing from my server... you're
quoting him is the only way I saw his message.  Looks like another
nice way to go at it.

> Remember, vi was that mode beast. It is easier to undo the correct choice
> of characters, if you tell the editor where it starts and ends (via mode
> switch).

Thats a good point... I wasn't really thinking about that but yes,
having a handy marker where input started and ends would lend a big
helping hand to making a nicer undo.

With a little practice here... I'm starting to think Drews' suggestion
may be enough for me... using C-/ and hold down.

make undo operate as in (no flames please) vim

[Harry Putnam]

I've used emacs for a goodly number of yrs now.  I'd say though that
my usage is considerably less sophisticated than many users here.

One thing I've actually come to dread is using undo.  I've never taken
the time to get this setup in some way that seems more useful to me.
I always just go for the `C-x u' repeatedly or else preface with some
number (C-u 20 C-x u) to get close if lots of undos are needed.

I often hit `C-x-u' (forgetting to release the C-x part) which brings
me to `upcase-region', which I keep disabled; that means I'm whisked
to a lengthy message about using `upcase-region' and generally
completely disrupting what I was doing.

This is of my own making and not a fault of emacs, but still I'd like
to have the undo behavior I find in vim.  It seems way closer to what
I usually want.  Where I press some keycombo and a whole sentence or
whatever is undone.  Instead of `C-x u' repeatedly to undo the same
line or even paragraph of type.

I don't want to go to viper-mode. That seems a bit drastic, but can
anyone tell me how to setup `undo' to behave more like the undo found
in vim?

RE: make undo operate as in (no flames please) vim

[Drew Adams]

> One thing I've actually come to dread is using undo.  I've never taken
> the time to get this setup in some way that seems more useful to me.
> I always just go for the `C-x u' repeatedly or else preface with some
> number (C-u 20 C-x u) to get close if lots of undos are needed.
> 
> I often hit `C-x-u' (forgetting to release the C-x part) which brings
> me to `upcase-region', which I keep disabled; that means I'm whisked
> to a lengthy message about using `upcase-region' and generally
> completely disrupting what I was doing.
> 
> This is of my own making and not a fault of emacs, but still I'd like
> to have the undo behavior I find in vim.  It seems way closer to what
> I usually want.  Where I press some keycombo and a whole sentence or
> whatever is undone.  Instead of `C-x u' repeatedly to undo the same
> line or even paragraph of type.

I can't help with the main question you raise (Vim-like undo), but I do wonder
why you use `C-x u' for undo. 

Both `C-_' and `C-/' are a lot easier to use, assuming they are available to
you. In particular, you can just hold them down to repeat, something you cannot
do with `C-x u'. If those keys are not available for some reason, and until you
find a Vim-like solution you are really happy with, why not bind undo to a
simple key sequence that can be repeated just by pressing and holding it?

The Emacs manual, node Undo, says that `C-x u' is really available as a binding
only because it is supposedly easier for users to remember. Personally, I think
we should get rid of that default binding. I cannot imagine anyone using an undo
binding that you can't just hold down to repeat. To me, that binding is a
vestige that should be excised. The last thing we should do is encourage a new
user, using the rationale of being easier to remember, to get in the bad habit
of using a key sequence that is not appropriate for undo.

I also don't recommend using a prefix arg with undo, except in particular
contexts. That is, if you're just guessing at a number, trying to aim at the
right number of undo operations directly, then I think that's probably a
mistake. In particular, if you want to return to an unmodified buffer, you risk
going past the origin without knowing it. (Yes, you can always revert the buffer
as an alternative.)

Anyway, people use Emacs differently; these are just my thoughts, based on my
own habits. YMMV.

Re: make undo operate as in (no flames please) vim

[Harry Putnam]

"Drew Adams" <drew.adams@oracle.com> writes:

[...]

>> I often hit `C-x-u' (forgetting to release the C-x part) which
>> brings me to `upcase-region', which I keep disabled; that means I'm
>> whisked to a lengthy message about using `upcase-region' and
>> generally completely disrupting what I was doing.
>> 
>> This is of my own making and not a fault of emacs, but still I'd
>> like to have the undo behavior I find in vim.  It seems way closer
>> to what I usually want.  Where I press some keycombo and a whole
>> sentence or whatever is undone.  Instead of `C-x u' repeatedly to
>> undo the same line or even paragraph of type.
>
> I can't help with the main question you raise (Vim-like undo), but I
> do wonder why you use `C-x u' for undo.

Long habit I guess.

> Both `C-_' and `C-/' are a lot easier to use, assuming they are
> available to you. In particular, you can just hold them down to
> repeat, something you cannot do with `C-x u'. If those keys are not
> available for some reason, and until you find a Vim-like solution
> you are really happy with, why not bind undo to a simple key
> sequence that can be repeated just by pressing and holding it?

C-_ seems pretty ungainly but yes C-/ is handy and I'd forgotten all
about being able to hold it down.  That alone may be enough to make me
a happy camper. 

> The Emacs manual, node Undo, says that `C-x u' is really available
> as a binding only because it is supposedly easier for users to
> remember. Personally, I think we should get rid of that default
> binding. I cannot imagine anyone using an undo binding that you
> can't just hold down to repeat. To me, that binding is a vestige
> that should be excised. The last thing we should do is encourage a
> new user, using the rationale of being easier to remember, to get in
> the bad habit of using a key sequence that is not appropriate for
> undo.

I may be living testimony to your line of reasoning there.

> I also don't recommend using a prefix arg with undo, except in
> particular contexts. That is, if you're just guessing at a number,
> trying to aim at the right number of undo operations directly, then
> I think that's probably a mistake. In particular, if you want to
> return to an unmodified buffer, you risk going past the origin
> without knowing it. (Yes, you can always revert the buffer as an
> alternative.)

You've hit on one of the reasons I had grown to dread using undo. 

I resorted to the prefix arg to eliminate possibly dozens of C-x u
presses which inevitably would lead sooner or later to hitting
`C-x-u', the dread upcase-region that totally disrupts the work flow.
And, like you guessed... there'd come a point where I'd have to figure
out if I'd passed the goal, and by then it wasn't unlikely that I'd be
somewhat confused about what was or wasn't undone.... Then the whole
thing with arrow keys to indicate which way to go with undo can get
pretty confusing too.

Now if only I can break the ingrained habit of using C-x u.... 

RE: make undo operate as in (no flames please) vim

[Drew Adams]

> You've hit on one of the reasons I had grown to dread using undo. 
> 
> I resorted to the prefix arg to eliminate possibly dozens of C-x u
> presses which inevitably would lead sooner or later to hitting
> `C-x-u', the dread upcase-region that totally disrupts the work flow.
> And, like you guessed... there'd come a point where I'd have to figure
> out if I'd passed the goal, and by then it wasn't unlikely that I'd be
> somewhat confused about what was or wasn't undone.... Then the whole
> thing with arrow keys to indicate which way to go with undo can get
> pretty confusing too.

Dunno what you mean by "the thing with arrow keys". Maybe that is something new
that I am unaware of.

The general rule is that undo just undoes. Including undoing what it itself did.
That means that to seemingly go backwards you need only do something other than
undo, then start doing undo again.

Example: C-/ C-/ C-/ SPC C-/ C-/

Hitting the space bar (or some other key, such as an arrow key) stops undoing.
Then hitting C-/ again undoes the space char insertion and starts undoing the
undo's that you did previously.

In this way, you can seemingly go backwards and forwards, like rewinding a
movie. You are not actually rewinding it, however: everything you do is added to
the undo chain. It's just that the undo chain then itself has back and forth
actions.

That's not a clear explanation - sorry. But if you try it you'll see what I
mean, I think.

This page might also help:
http://www.emacswiki.org/emacs/CategoryUndo

> Now if only I can break the ingrained habit of using C-x u.... 

;-)

And I do hope someone helps you find the Vim-like behavior you really want.

Re: make undo operate as in (no flames please) vim

[Samuel Wales]

IMO (this whole post is IMO) the single most confusing aspect of emacs
in practice for old and new users alike -- although some people are
amazingly not at all confused by it -- is undo.

More generally, many commands have no good provision for overshooting.
 This applies to mark cycling, global mark cycling, and many other
things.  Most of them provide a ring instead of forward and backward
commands.  But undo provides a mechanism that is simple in principle
but impossible (for probably the vast majority of users) in practice.
And that's the "just undo the undo" problem.

In other words, there are many commands that don't allow you to go
forward if you overshoot going backward.

In all cases, I believe that forward and backward commands would be
easier for most users.

(Drew, you're probably itching to mention Icicles here :), but I'm
referring to vanilla emacs here, and want to talk about that only,
since not everybody uses Icicles.  I still don't, for several reasons,
despite its nice aspects.)

Consider the arrow keys.  To go forward, (or down), you just press the
key.  You are *not* asked to press backward (or up) until it wraps
around, as you are with the mark ring and the global mark ring.

And you *not* asked to "just go backward on the backward" by pressing
the key until you overshoot, then pressing another key, then pressing
the key again a bunch of times until you undo the overshoot.

You just press the key!

redo.el corrupts the buffer.  It is not suitable to include in emacs
until that bug is fixed.

But I think that emacs would be greatly improved if all current and
future movement commands like mark ring, global mark ring, and undo
list, had forward and backward.

This, I think, would please old and new users alike.

Except for the supermen who have no problem using undo the way it is.  :)

-- 
For personal and corporate gain, myalgic encephalomyelitis denialists
are knowingly causing massive suffering and 25-years-early death by
grossly corrupting science.
http://www.meactionuk.org.uk/What_Is_ME_What_Is_CFS.htm

RE: make undo operate as in (no flames please) vim

[Drew Adams]

> IMO (this whole post is IMO) the single most confusing aspect of emacs
> in practice for old and new users alike -- although some people are
> amazingly not at all confused by it -- is undo.
> 
> More generally, many commands have no good provision for overshooting.
> This applies to mark cycling, global mark cycling, and many other
> things.  Most of them provide a ring instead of forward and backward
> commands.

You seem to open a different topic here: IIUC, you're proposing backward, as
well as forward commands for (at least some) places where Emacs currently uses
rings. How about starting a separate thread for that?

> But undo provides a mechanism that is simple in principle
> but impossible (for probably the vast majority of users) in practice.
> And that's the "just undo the undo" problem.

I have no idea whether that is true, but I would doubt it, based on Emacs users
I've known over the years (anecdotal evidence, admittedly). There are no doubt
some Emacs users for whom undo is "impossible...in practice", but my guess would
be that it is a minority of users.

Still, there's no reason those unhappy undoers shouldn't have an undo behavior
more suited to them. Perhaps the right undo for them remains to be written, or
perhaps there is already something out there for them - dunno.

The approach with Emacs, when it's thought that things could be done better, is
typically to change its behavior via some personal code. Later, if there is a
strong push from others to change the default behavior to that experimental
behavior, Emacs developers would hopefully do that. But typically, if the two
behaviors are quite different, there would be some users who still prefer the
older default behavior, and typically there would be a way for them to continue
to use it.

IOW, Emacs generally allows multiple alternative behaviors - different strokes
for different folks.

In this case, it sounds like you haven't yet found the right undo behavior for
you (and perhaps others). If none satisfactory exists yet, then I think the only
recourse is to write one. Not necessarily you, but probably someone among the
"vast majority" of unhappy undoers. Users who are happy with vanilla undo are
less likely to write a better/different one.

> In other words, there are many commands that don't allow you to go
> forward if you overshoot going backward. In all cases, I believe
> that forward and backward commands would be easier for most users.

That's suitable for a different thread, IMO.

> (Drew, you're probably itching to mention Icicles here :), but I'm
> referring to vanilla emacs here, and want to talk about that only,
> since not everybody uses Icicles.  I still don't, for several reasons,
> despite its nice aspects.)

;-)

That would be for your thread replace-fwd-only-rings-by-fwd-+-backward-cmds, in
any case. Icicles doesn't try to enhance undo in any way.

> Consider the arrow keys.  To go forward, (or down), you just press the
> key.  You are *not* asked to press backward (or up) until it wraps
> around, as you are with the mark ring and the global mark ring.
> 
> And you *not* asked to "just go backward on the backward" by pressing
> the key until you overshoot, then pressing another key, then pressing
> the key again a bunch of times until you undo the overshoot.
> You just press the key!

Other thread.

> redo.el corrupts the buffer.  It is not suitable to include in emacs
> until that bug is fixed.

I know nothing about `redo.el', but if you want to discuss its failings, please
be more specific. That description doesn't mean much, at least to me (but again,
I'm not familiar with `redo.el').

What I take away from that statement is that `redo.el' doesn't solve the undo
problem, as you see it.

Someone else suggested it might. Dunno if `redo.el' should be discussed here or
just dismissed. Maybe it DTRT for some people; maybe there is more than one camp
of those for whom Emacs undo is unsatisfactory. The different preferences might
be worth exploring (or not).

> But I think that emacs would be greatly improved if all current and
> future movement commands like mark ring, global mark ring, and undo
> list, had forward and backward. This, I think, would please old and
> new users alike.

Other thread.

> Except for the supermen who have no problem using undo the 
> way it is.  :)

Now we're back to undo. I don't expect that Emacs undo is for everyone, but my
experience is that users who find its behavior helpful and have no problem with
it are not necessarily supermen. I've seen many, many, many novice users and
non-supermen users get along fine with undo. YMMV, but if it doesn't suit you
it's not because you're not a superman. ;-)

Re: make undo operate as in (no flames please) vim

[Samuel Wales]

Point taken about other thread.  It is a generalization.

On Sun, Jan 25, 2009 at 12:29, Drew Adams <drew.adams@oracle.com> wrote:
> IOW, Emacs generally allows multiple alternative behaviors - different strokes
> for different folks.

Of course.  Existing users should not be forced to change.

> In this case, it sounds like you haven't yet found the right undo behavior for
> you (and perhaps others). If none satisfactory exists yet, then I think the only

Not true.  redo.el has adequate behavior.  But it has a bug that makes
it corrupt the buffer.

>> And you *not* asked to "just go backward on the backward" by pressing
>> the key until you overshoot, then pressing another key, then pressing
>> the key again a bunch of times until you undo the overshoot.
>> You just press the key!
>
> Other thread.

This thread, if I understood the OP correctly.

-- 
For personal and corporate gain, myalgic encephalomyelitis denialists
are knowingly causing massive suffering and 25-years-early death by
grossly corrupting science.
http://www.meactionuk.org.uk/What_Is_ME_What_Is_CFS.htm

Re: make undo operate as in (no flames please) vim

[David Kastrup]

Samuel Wales <samologist@gmail.com> writes:

> IMO (this whole post is IMO) the single most confusing aspect of emacs
> in practice for old and new users alike -- although some people are
> amazingly not at all confused by it -- is undo.
>
> More generally, many commands have no good provision for overshooting.
>  This applies to mark cycling, global mark cycling, and many other
> things.  Most of them provide a ring instead of forward and backward
> commands.  But undo provides a mechanism that is simple in principle
> but impossible (for probably the vast majority of users) in practice.
> And that's the "just undo the undo" problem.

Have you tried using undo-only instead of undo?

-- 
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum

Re: make undo operate as in (no flames please) vim

[Samuel Wales]

On Sun, Jan 25, 2009 at 12:59, David Kastrup <dak@gnu.org> wrote:
> Have you tried using undo-only instead of undo?

Helps when the OP hits the wrong key.

I tried it with a negative argument and it did not go forward.  So it
does not go the other direction.

-- 
For personal and corporate gain, myalgic encephalomyelitis denialists
are knowingly causing massive suffering and 25-years-early death by
grossly corrupting science.
http://www.meactionuk.org.uk/What_Is_ME_What_Is_CFS.htm

Re: make undo operate as in (no flames please) vim

[Ken Goldman]

Samuel Wales wrote:

> More generally, many commands have no good provision for
> overshooting.

Common problem, trivial solution.

If you overshoot the undo, just hit any character, e.g. space.  Then
undo will start going backward, basically undoing the previous undo.

Re: make undo operate as in (no flames please) vim

[Samuel Wales]

On Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 08:14, Ken Goldman <kgold@watson.ibm.com> wrote:
> Samuel Wales wrote:
>
>> More generally, many commands have no good provision for
>> overshooting.
>
> Common problem, trivial solution.
>
> If you overshoot the undo, just hit any character, e.g. space.  Then
> undo will start going backward, basically undoing the previous undo.

Please read the rest of my post -- including the end of the
paragraph that you quote -- where I directly address that
proposed solution.

-- 
For personal and corporate gain, myalgic encephalomyelitis denialists
are knowingly causing massive suffering and 25-years-early death by
grossly corrupting science.
http://www.meactionuk.org.uk/What_Is_ME_What_Is_CFS.htm