RE: Menu commands to M-x history?

[Drew Adams]

> You said that this history is for just M-x history commands. That
> semantic is really a programmers semantic. The argument we want to use
> for the user interface is rather if it is useful for users to do a
> certain thing.

Well, that's exactly the question we're discussing:

1. Whether it is useful to include commands invoked using the menu in M-x's
history.

2. If so, whether to do that by default or only on demand.

You and I say it can be useful (1); some others have seemed to say no. You say
this should be the default behavior (2); I say no. Neither of us is arguing from
the point of view of implementers. All arguments so far have been in terms of
usefulness to users. We just disagree.
 
> >> Don't mix the programmer semantics with the user semantics unless
> >> there is a good reason to do so. Very often there is, but not in a
> >> case like this.
> >
> > What does that mean? How did I mix them? Or what non-mixing 
> > do you have in mind? IOW, what is it that you are really trying to say?
> 
> Really nothing more than that the argument the M-x history is for "M-x
> executed commands" is useless. It focuses more on the programming side
> than on the user.

I don't see why. As a user, I want to see, by default, the commands I have
already entered as input to M-x.

This has nothing, for me, to do with "the programming side". It would be easy
enough for me to always use the larger list, `icicle-interactive-history', which
includes menu item, in the Icicles implementation of `M-x'. I choose not to do
so for the benefit of users. There is no difficulty in substituting a different
history variable, so your "programming side" argument is without basis.

> >> > That's important for users.
> >> Why is it important for users?
> > See what was said previously. Noise reduction.
> 
> If we want to put menu commands in M-x history then it is not noise.

Again, it just means more stuff for users to search through. And in the Icicles
case, I include not only menu items but all commands invoked using
`call-interactively' (which means even more such noise).

> > Pertinence of history entries to the task at hand.
> 
> I can't see why that should exclude menu commands from M-x history. Do
> you do something very special when you use the menus that you do not
> do when you use M-x?

I don't have an answer that will satisfy you, I guess. I think we can agree to
disagree.

> > You know, we _could_ always use just `minibuffer-history', 
> > and have no such specificity. But that is less useful to users.
> 
> And why do you say this? ... ;-)

Why would no specificity at all be less useful? Seems obvious. Although the
`commandp' predicate for `M-x' would filter out non-commands as completion
candidates, accessing non-commands from the history via `M-p' etc. would mean
plowing through irrelevant noise.

If you consider all of the possible types of completion candiates (colors,
buffers, files, commands, variables, ...), I should think the interest in having
separate, domain-specific history lists would be obvious.

> >> > It is why commands executed using key bindings are also not
> >> > included in the history list.
> >>
> >> That is a totally diffirent story since it is a different 
> >> context as I said before. You really do not need any of the
> >> commands you execute with a key binding in the M-x history.
> >
> > I think you do. But only on demand.
> 
> I am surprised. It seems like a very minor case.

Well, in Icicles, you can do multiple things with multiple completion
candidates. Just as you can build a keyboard macro using both keystrokes and M-x
invocations, so a combination can sometimes be useful in Icicles. At least,
that's the idea.

But I suppose that three tiers could be useful:

1. M-x commands
2. #1 + commands invoked via menu
3. #2 + the other commands invoked via `call-interactively'

Currently, I have only two tiers: #1 and #3 (including #2).
 
> >> Because it is intended to be helpful to newbies, Not to
> >> experienced Emacs users.
> >
> > I intend it to be helpful to both. If a newbie can learn 
> > `C-h k', then s?he can learn a key to complete commands previously
> > invoked from the menu.
> 
> Nothing wrong with that of course. I just mean that there is not so
> very much to care about for old time users if commands invoked from
> the menus are put in the M-x history.

You mean that adding those commands won't bother old-timers? Dunno.
 
> > We agree that being able to access menu items via history 
> > can be helpful. We disagree whether such access should be by
> > default or on demand.
> 
> Yes.