From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Stefan Monnier Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Suggestion: C-x C-u => undo-only Date: Sun, 03 Apr 2005 11:49:27 -0400 Message-ID: <87r7hr6ez1.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 1112546053 7210 80.91.229.2 (3 Apr 2005 16:34:13 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 3 Apr 2005 16:34:13 +0000 (UTC) Cc: "Kim F. Storm" , emacs-devel@gnu.org, miles@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sun Apr 03 18:34:11 2005 Return-path: Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by ciao.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1DI82W-0004Wy-0b for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sun, 03 Apr 2005 18:33:32 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1DI84D-00016c-MN for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sun, 03 Apr 2005 12:35:17 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1DI7yS-0007ht-QH for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 03 Apr 2005 12:29:21 -0400 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1DI7yB-0007Ze-25 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 03 Apr 2005 12:29:06 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1DI7y9-0007Vf-Ux for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 03 Apr 2005 12:29:01 -0400 Original-Received: from [209.226.175.110] (helo=tomts43-srv.bellnexxia.net) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1DI7nO-0002r8-VB; Sun, 03 Apr 2005 12:17:55 -0400 Original-Received: from alfajor ([65.92.243.210]) by tomts43-srv.bellnexxia.net (InterMail vM.5.01.06.10 201-253-122-130-110-20040306) with ESMTP id <20050403161729.WWNT28273.tomts43-srv.bellnexxia.net@alfajor>; Sun, 3 Apr 2005 12:17:29 -0400 Original-Received: by alfajor (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 94E65D72DF; Sun, 3 Apr 2005 11:49:27 -0400 (EDT) Original-To: snogglethorpe@gmail.com In-Reply-To: (Miles Bader's message of "Sun, 3 Apr 2005 08:49:16 +0900") User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.0.50 (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 Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:35531 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.devel:35531 > So while I kinda like the idea of some rationalization of the undo > binding, I _don't_ think having undo and undo-only on `C-x u' and `C-x > C-u' is a good idea. Agreed. I really like the C-x U binding: it's not like it's a completely different command than the one bound to C-x u, so it basically just uses the shift modifier as a kind of special arg, kind of like a prefix argument. Also undo-more can be tought of as "bigger undo" (it takes larger steps sometimes to skip over some redo/undo pairs), so it makes sense to bind it to a bigger letter. Stefan