Re: [CVS] f7, f8 bound..

[Stefan Monnier]

> "Stefan Monnier" <monnier+gnu/address@hidden> writes:
> 
> > > Maybe it would be sensible to make this customizeable, e.g.
> > > kmacro-call-repeat-key which defaults to `e' or ` ' or nil.
> > 
> > I think repeating "the last key" is the best choice, in case the command
> > is bound to something else than C-x e.  Also this mimics the C-x z z z z
> > behavior, so there's a precedent for it.
> 
> I've implemented this.
> 
> New custom variables are kmacro-call-repeat-key and
> kmacro-call-repeat-with-arg so both you and Miles will be happy.
> 
> In addition C-x e will now end the macro (like C-x )) if it is current
> defining a macro rather than signalling an error.  And you can repeat it
> immediately with `e'...

Thanks.  That's just great!
Hopefully the repeating behavior (whether with C-x e e e e
or C-x e SPC SPC SPC) can be made the default, but at least now it's
easy to turn it on.

> > Because I don't want to see the interface I use (i.e. C-x (, C-x )
> > and C-x e) take second class status and have all the improvement go
> > on F3 and F4 bindings.
> 
> This is unfounded.  I think I'm pretty receptive to the requests and
> ideas from users to add features that I'd never use myself.

Yes, but you wouldn't have thought about C-x e e e e yourself because
you don't use that interface [ I fell like I'm not really
defending my argument here ;-) ]

> >  I'd rather see the `edit-kbd-macro' kind of functionality
> > improved/supplemented with something lighter weight so I can fix my macros
> > "on the fly" as I see them fail (no I don't know what that would look
> > like, sadly).
> 
> That's a nice idea.  
> 
> Maybe something like "step through macro" with the ability:
> 
> For each key sequence, ask user for confirmation:
> 
>  SPC to accept the last action and executes the next,
>  DEL to undo the last action and removes it from the macro,
>  C-x ( ... C-x ) allows you to add actions in the middle of the macro, and
>  RET simply accepts the rest of the macro.
> 
> WDYT?

As I said I had no idead what that could look like, but this suggestion
sounds pretty good.  Maybe something else than C-x ( ... C-x )
(for instance: any other binding is taken as "execute it and insert
it in the macro"), so if I see that the macro failed, I can undo it,
then step through it and when a step fails I just DEL + replacement...
That sounds great.


        Stefan