Re: [CVS] f7, f8 bound..

[Kim F. Storm]

Francesco Potorti` <address@hidden> writes:

>        I would like to change that so if an error occurs while defining a
>        macro, emacs will query the user whether he wants to continue adding
>        to the macro, end and save it, or discard it.   WDYT?
>    
>    The question would be very annoying.  I think it should terminate and
>    define the macro.  If the user wants to ignore that definition, he
>    can.  If the user wants to add to it, he can do that too.
>    
> That is only part of the problem.  It often occurs to me that, while I'm
> defining a long macro, I make a mistake in the middle of it.  
> 
> The current behaviour is discarding the work done so far, so I have to
> restart from the beginning.  
> 
> The behaviour Richard proposes is to stop recording the macro (without
> discarding it), so I'd have to restart with a series of undos, in order
> to get rid of the modifications I did with the interrupted macro
> definition, then restart with C-uC-x(, which reexecutes the macro
> defined so far and then allows me to continue defining it.  Also, this
> requires some thinking, because after doing the undo and the redo I must
> be careful to remember where exactly I had made a mistake.

You can use C-u C-u C-x ( to append to the macro without re-executing it first.

Also look at `kmacro-execute-before-command'.  If you set it to nil, you can
use C-u C-x ( to append to the previous macro without re-executing it.

You can look at the defined macro with C-x C-k C-v.

You can also experiment with the new step-edit feature on C-x C-k SPC.

> 
> Generally speaking, the possible choices one would want are:
> - aborting the definition (the current behaviour)
> - ending the definition with or without the last command
> - continuing the definition with or without the last command
> 
> As Miles says, however, only one question is needed:
>  Error occured; ignore last command? (y or n)
> without interrupting the recording of the macro.
> 
> This would leave the user the whole range of choices: they can abort
> with C-g, they can continue, they can end with C-x), and they can choose
> whether they want the last command included.

Although this would be nice, I think the current feature set is adequate.

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