Re: Menu commands to M-x history?

[Lennart Borgman <lennart.borgman@gmail.com>]

On Mon, Jul 27, 2009 at 10:26 PM, Drew Adams<drew.adams@oracle.com> wrote:
>> You said that this history is for just M-x history commands. That
>> semantic is really a programmers semantic. The argument we want to use
>> for the user interface is rather if it is useful for users to do a
>> certain thing.
>
> Well, that's exactly the question we're discussing:
>
> 1. Whether it is useful to include commands invoked using the menu in M-x's
> history.
>
> 2. If so, whether to do that by default or only on demand.
>
> You and I say it can be useful (1); some others have seemed to say no. You say
> this should be the default behavior (2); I say no. Neither of us is arguing from
> the point of view of implementers. All arguments so far have been in terms of
> usefulness to users. We just disagree.


Then please don't use arguments like "As someone else said, `M-x' is,
well, for `M-x'-executed commands". By that it looks like you imply
there is a very special semantics behind it that we should follow.
(You can of course use such language, but just throw it away when you
can't defend it.)


>> Really nothing more than that the argument the M-x history is for "M-x
>> executed commands" is useless. It focuses more on the programming side
>> than on the user.
>
> I don't see why. As a user, I want to see, by default, the commands I have
> already entered as input to M-x.


Maybe. I don't think that is true for all users since I have seen this
implemented in other places (not in Emacs and I don't remember where
now).

Perhaps there should be an option for this then.


>> If we want to put menu commands in M-x history then it is not noise.
>
> Again, it just means more stuff for users to search through.


There should be no more than what is useful to have there and no less.
So I can't find your argument here useful.


> And in the Icicles
> case, I include not only menu items but all commands invoked using
> `call-interactively' (which means even more such noise).


To me it seems very strange to put all commands called from
call-interactively there so I am not proposing that.


>> I can't see why that should exclude menu commands from M-x history. Do
>> you do something very special when you use the menus that you do not
>> do when you use M-x?
>
> I don't have an answer that will satisfy you, I guess. I think we can agree to
> disagree.


Yes, it is not very important. I am just looking for an argument from
you that I can find valid in this context. I have found two arguments
(that I remember) so far:

- The length of the history list
- A surprising content of the history list

As I have said above I think I have good arguments against them, but
you obviously think different.


>> > You know, we _could_ always use just `minibuffer-history',
>> > and have no such specificity. But that is less useful to users.
>>
>> And why do you say this? ... ;-)
>
> Why would no specificity at all be less useful? Seems obvious. Although the
> `commandp' predicate for `M-x' would filter out non-commands as completion
> candidates, accessing non-commands from the history via `M-p' etc. would mean
> plowing through irrelevant noise.
>
> If you consider all of the possible types of completion candiates (colors,
> buffers, files, commands, variables, ...), I should think the interest in having
> separate, domain-specific history lists would be obvious.


Yes, but why are you arguing against your own arguments. This has
nothing to do with what I have said. (But please let us not waste time
on this part.)


>> Nothing wrong with that of course. I just mean that there is not so
>> very much to care about for old time users if commands invoked from
>> the menus are put in the M-x history.
>
> You mean that adding those commands won't bother old-timers? Dunno.


Everything bothers old timers ... ;-)

No, I really don't think it would. They mostly use menus very seldom.