[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 18:41:53 +0000 (UTC)

Hi Stefan:

It is actually simple. The idea is to have more or less what undo-fu provides but in vanilla. I don't actually know if it is possible to do that for redo with what we already have there. (Probably yes and I don't know how)

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)

Basically I don't want to depend of undo-fu anymore for such a basic editing functionality as we already have the half of the work and because it tries to reinvent part of the wheel in my opinion.

Does it makes sense?

-----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 8:10 pm
Subject: Re: If undo-only why not a redo-only?

> I've seen that we have an undo-only command and a way to customize
> a variable to do so for undo-redo.
> Is it too complex to implement the same to do a redo-only equivalent in
> order to bind that to a different key if the user wants so?

I don't understand what you're asking for.
Could you give some examples of what you'd like to see?

The current code is designed so you can have a "plain old undo+redo"
system by using the commands `undo-only` and `undo-redo`.


reply via email to

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