[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: If undo-only why not a redo-only?

From: Ergus
Subject: Re: If undo-only why not a redo-only?
Date: Mon, 8 Jun 2020 21:18:43 +0000 (UTC)

Ohh, now I got it.

Sorry, but the name `undo-redo` was not clear for me at all (it seems more appropriated for the normal emacs undo as it actually does undo and redo) and the function documentation was confusing itself "Undo the last ARG undos" (it seems a prophecy of an oracle ;p ) also I didn't find anything more explicit in the manual either. Actually there are some useful undo related functions in simple.el I wasn't aware of and I just discovered looking into it. Maybe it would be fine to rename it or provide an alias more "symmetric" like `redo-only` or just `redo`?

So the only missing functions available in undo-fu are undo-fu-[redo/undo]-all but I have never used them so I don't actually care them.

Thanks for everything.

-----Original Message-----
From: Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca>
To: Ergus <spacibba@aol.com>
Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org <emacs-devel@gnu.org>
Sent: Mon, Jun 8, 2020 9:27 pm
Subject: Re: If undo-only why not a redo-only?

> The idea is to navigate only in one direction until the initial opposite
> action. or the other with the *-only commands, without the danger of
> switching unintentionally from undo to redo or vice-versa. If there is not
> more undo or redo or the next action is the opposite (redo/undo), just stop
> and do nothing (print a message maybe)

Yes, that's what `undo-only` and `undo-redo` attempt to provide, IIUC.
Have you bumped into problems with them?


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]