From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Stefan Monnier Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Support for undo-amalgamate in a version of the atomic-change-group macro (with patch) Date: Mon, 01 Nov 2021 22:14:07 -0400 Message-ID: References: <2d2efa59-cf88-5238-0db6-58d55e6c5c98@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="24797"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/28.0.50 (gnu/linux) Cc: Emacs developers To: Campbell Barton Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Tue Nov 02 03:16:16 2021 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([209.51.188.17]) by ciao.gmane.io with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1mhjLU-0006Gc-1k for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Tue, 02 Nov 2021 03:16:16 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:45420 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1mhjLS-0006Ce-KP for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Mon, 01 Nov 2021 22:16:14 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:51380) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1mhjJY-0004p3-2E for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 01 Nov 2021 22:14:17 -0400 Original-Received: from mailscanner.iro.umontreal.ca ([132.204.25.50]:6584) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1mhjJV-0006KB-CP for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 01 Nov 2021 22:14:14 -0400 Original-Received: from pmg2.iro.umontreal.ca (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by pmg2.iro.umontreal.ca (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 38D83804CD; Mon, 1 Nov 2021 22:14:11 -0400 (EDT) Original-Received: from mail01.iro.umontreal.ca (unknown [172.31.2.1]) by pmg2.iro.umontreal.ca (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 8B6EE80125; Mon, 1 Nov 2021 22:14:09 -0400 (EDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=iro.umontreal.ca; s=mail; t=1635819249; bh=A8ZU7Wy3bo9BsyASpWq/Uq+J5afVEfjCL9sbTLxHpGw=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:References:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=UWLdoYM6b0P8I7PhsE5s9sKfqWk6wR6bqumXcctolGXYyyrQaM5M28B1051w/tjtX /4Qld9qW6FhOJgjuipRtMvTHk/JfiVtfSQsxmlNwNlyBv6/eWPGAbxKTO/F2NH7rsy GX0BdO9Mrqu+qo39P0nJWHCbI6K6xSLcbs/fQP9TcNSoWpDUt4h5jWfNoUBnqK0jHo k9D/HhMbD+JQoJtXZcToxSPX83ea2mFxZbIZdvMFviLEhxBbJFO/Msh0LJCnXjpXxR WEE0qg3MT2D3MfyG485IqGqSl2p0LCAFYDwyg5ZTy/Mns4cLuu+fHKfq3CJ3JhCLhw ZCTREI06jjx/A== Original-Received: from ceviche (unknown [45.72.241.23]) by mail01.iro.umontreal.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 5B5DD1204B0; Mon, 1 Nov 2021 22:14:09 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: <2d2efa59-cf88-5238-0db6-58d55e6c5c98@gmail.com> (Campbell Barton's message of "Tue, 2 Nov 2021 12:04:33 +1100") Received-SPF: pass client-ip=132.204.25.50; envelope-from=monnier@iro.umontreal.ca; helo=mailscanner.iro.umontreal.ca X-Spam_score_int: -42 X-Spam_score: -4.3 X-Spam_bar: ---- X-Spam_report: (-4.3 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: "Emacs-devel" Xref: news.gmane.io gmane.emacs.devel:278458 Archived-At: > In these situations collapsing undo data was necessary. > - Calling kmacro-exec-ring-item (based on this answer [0]) Aha, yes, this one makes a lot of sense. > - Calling some evil functions for e.g. > > (defun evil-paste-and-indent-after () > (interactive) > (with-undo-collapse > (evil-paste-after 1) > (evil-indent (evil-get-marker ?\[) > (evil-get-marker ?\])))) Yes, there are indeed a few commands that explicitly call `undo-boundary`. These are rather rare (and you can often argue that they're bugs, where the undo-boundary should only be inserted if the command is used interactively). Stefan