[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: master 0695108 2/2: Revert "Add `r'/`l' grep command history command

From: Eli Zaretskii
Subject: Re: master 0695108 2/2: Revert "Add `r'/`l' grep command history commands"
Date: Mon, 04 Apr 2016 23:25:15 +0300

> From: Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen <address@hidden>
> Cc: John Wiegley <address@hidden>,  address@hidden
> Date: Mon, 04 Apr 2016 20:38:46 +0200
> Eli Zaretskii <address@hidden> writes:
> > One comment that I have about the feature as it was committed is that
> > if we want to have an easy way of rerunning past commands, then it
> > should be defined in compilation-mode, so that all its derivatives
> > will get it.
> I considered that, but I thought it might be more controversial.  The
> compilation commands may, in general, be somewhat destructive, and
> rerunning them while hitting `r'/`l' may not be what you want at all.

Then the user will not rerun those commands.  Most commands are not
destructive, though.  In addition, Grep mode is not the only one
derived from Compilation.

> > I also don't see a lot of mnemonic value in binding these commands to
> > 'l' and 'r', and would suggest additional bindings which would be
> > easier to remember even for those who don't browse URLs all day long.
> They are used in all the other special modes that offer traversing a
> history of generated buffers: Info, *Help*, eww...

I asked for _additional_ bindings.  I didn't say these should be

> > I also think that 100-long history for these commands is waaaaay too
> > much.  It should be a defcustom, and the default value should be maybe
> > 10 or 16.
> I don't think so.  Having a 100-long history is basically nothing these
> days.

I'm not talking about memory it takes.  I'm talking about someone
sitting and pressing 'l' 100 times, re-running all those commands in
between.  I cannot imagine someone will want that.

reply via email to

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