From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Stefan Monnier Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: AW: AW: New undo element (fun . args) Date: Mon, 07 Feb 2005 10:15:41 -0500 Message-ID: <876514mmsn.fsf-monnier+emacs@gnu.org> References: NNTP-Posting-Host: main.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1107790148 28774 80.91.229.2 (7 Feb 2005 15:29:08 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 7 Feb 2005 15:29:08 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org, rms@gnu.org, storm@cua.dk Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Mon Feb 07 16:29:08 2005 Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by ciao.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1CyAot-0001RN-Ss for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 07 Feb 2005 16:29:00 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1CyB32-0003Xx-42 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 07 Feb 2005 10:43:36 -0500 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1CyAqm-00074O-DS for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 07 Feb 2005 10:30:58 -0500 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1CyAqQ-0006uW-Jp for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 07 Feb 2005 10:30:37 -0500 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1CyAqQ-0006u0-Ds for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 07 Feb 2005 10:30:34 -0500 Original-Received: from [209.226.175.74] (helo=tomts20-srv.bellnexxia.net) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1CyAc2-00081R-Vr; Mon, 07 Feb 2005 10:15:43 -0500 Original-Received: from alfajor ([65.92.240.235]) by tomts20-srv.bellnexxia.net (InterMail vM.5.01.06.10 201-253-122-130-110-20040306) with ESMTP id <20050207151542.RGVC2034.tomts20-srv.bellnexxia.net@alfajor>; Mon, 7 Feb 2005 10:15:42 -0500 Original-Received: by alfajor (Postfix, from userid 1000) id E55F32FF89; Mon, 7 Feb 2005 10:15:41 -0500 (EST) Original-To: In-Reply-To: (klaus berndl's message of "Mon, 7 Feb 2005 15:49:48 +0100") User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/21.3.50 (gnu/linux) X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org X-MailScanner-To: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:33013 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.devel:33013 > Then these are your experiences with "your" users... but for me an undo is > annoying (and even quite unuseable) which doesn't protect me against > accidentally "undoing some undos" (i.e. with current Emacs-undo i get no > information from Emacs that my undo-action is not really an undo but a redo > of a previous undo - if you understand what i try to say ;-) Of course I understand what you say. I worked on this specific part of the behavior to implement undo-only. And your remark is not quite true: the echo area tells you either "Undo!" or "Redo!" depending on whether you're undoing an undo or not. Actually my own local Emacs has a further hack such that when `undo' notices it's actually undoing an undo it asks me whether I want to "redo" or not (if not, it does what `undo-only' would have done, skipping the redo-undo pair). This is an experiment and I'm not satisfied with it as it is (it's too annoying). > And when undoing some steps i often reach a point where i do not know > exactly where i'm in the undo-chain - whereas with redo.el i exactly know > when i have undone all and when there is nothing more to undo - Yes, redo.el is much more limited and has a much simpler linear model, whereas Emacs's undo keeps track of a tree of buffer modifications, which is more difficult to model in your head. > IMHO much more intuitive... but maybe it#s a matter of taste... I wouldn't call it more intuitive, but simpler. Stefan