From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Drew Adams Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.help Subject: RE: Reverting but keeping undo Date: Tue, 28 May 2013 20:09:24 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: References: <87mwrwede7.fsf@wanadoo.es> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1369796990 1006 80.91.229.3 (29 May 2013 03:09:50 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 29 May 2013 03:09:50 +0000 (UTC) To: Stefan Monnier , help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Original-X-From: help-gnu-emacs-bounces+geh-help-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Wed May 29 05:09:49 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 1UhWlo-0005Uq-Hm for geh-help-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Wed, 29 May 2013 05:09:48 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:39687 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1UhWlo-0008As-1E for geh-help-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Tue, 28 May 2013 23:09:48 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:53699) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1UhWlZ-0008Am-Nr for help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Tue, 28 May 2013 23:09:38 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1UhWlV-0002Ir-3m for help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Tue, 28 May 2013 23:09:33 -0400 Original-Received: from userp1040.oracle.com ([156.151.31.81]:24198) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1UhWlU-0002Ii-T6 for help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Tue, 28 May 2013 23:09:29 -0400 Original-Received: from ucsinet21.oracle.com (ucsinet21.oracle.com [156.151.31.93]) by userp1040.oracle.com (Sentrion-MTA-4.3.1/Sentrion-MTA-4.3.1) with ESMTP id r4T39PxG029212 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Wed, 29 May 2013 03:09:26 GMT Original-Received: from aserz7021.oracle.com (aserz7021.oracle.com [141.146.126.230]) by ucsinet21.oracle.com (8.14.4+Sun/8.14.4) with ESMTP id r4T39PLQ029900 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Wed, 29 May 2013 03:09:26 GMT Original-Received: from abhmt102.oracle.com (abhmt102.oracle.com [141.146.116.54]) by aserz7021.oracle.com (8.14.4+Sun/8.14.4) with ESMTP id r4T39POW027035; Wed, 29 May 2013 03:09:25 GMT In-Reply-To: X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Oracle Beehive Extensions for Outlook 2.0.1.7 (607090) [OL 12.0.6668.5000 (x86)] X-Source-IP: ucsinet21.oracle.com [156.151.31.93] X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.4.x-2.6.x [generic] X-Received-From: 156.151.31.81 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:91116 Archived-At: > > `revert-buffer' discards undo history. >=20 > 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 par= t of what reverting means. And it is clearly intended in the code, not jus= t an unfortunate accident or oversight. If some code or user has a use for not removing undo, fine. But why not ma= ke this removal optional, controlled, e.g., by a variable or a parameter? = Why willy nilly remove something clearly intended from the beginning to be = an integral part of reverting (at least by default)? 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?) Let's not forget either that `revert-buffer' is used both in code and inter= actively. Those two uses are sometimes quite different.