Suggestion: C-x C-u => undo-only

Suggestion: C-x C-u => undo-only

[Kim F. Storm]

simple.el has this comment:

;; Richard said that we should not use C-x <uppercase letter> and I have
;; no idea whereas to bind it.  Any suggestion welcome.  -stef
;; (define-key ctl-x-map "U" 'undo-only)
 
What about C-x C-u ?

-- 
Kim F. Storm <storm@cua.dk> http://www.cua.dk

Re: Suggestion: C-x C-u => undo-only

[Miles Bader]

On Apr 3, 2005 7:56 AM, Kim F. Storm <storm@cua.dk> wrote:
> What about C-x C-u ?

Besides the fact that it's already bound to something, I think it's a
bad idea to put various subtle variations of the same command on very
similar bindings, it's just too hard to keep straight; I think it's
very likely that people would end up thinking that both are actually
bound to the same command and be confused by the subtle difference.

Note that I do think it's a bit dumb that the easy-to-type binding
(C-x C-u) is a rare command like upcase-region, and the harder-to-type
binding (C-x u) is a very common command (this is especially silly for
undo because you very often want to invoke it repeatedly, which is
rather hard to do if one must keep pressing and releasing the control
key!).

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.

-Miles
-- 
Do not taunt Happy Fun Ball.

Re: Suggestion: C-x C-u => undo-only

[Stefan Monnier]

> 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

Re: Suggestion: C-x C-u => undo-only

[Richard Stallman]

    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.

I don't want to think of it that way.  I do not think we need a key
binding for this command, and certainly don't want to introduce
unpleasant or unusual kinds of keybindings in order to make one.

Let's let this drop.

Re: Suggestion: C-x C-u => undo-only

[Richard Stallman]

    Note that I do think it's a bit dumb that the easy-to-type binding
    (C-x C-u) is a rare command like upcase-region, and the harder-to-type
    binding (C-x u) is a very common command

The purpose of the c-x u binding is to be easy to describe.
The same command has other key bindings that are easier to type,
but how to type them depends on your keyboard.