Re: why "undo the undo" is not equivalent to redo

[stan]

Samuel Wales wrote:
> I have had this around for a while.  The usual advice from
> undoers is that "undo the undo" is sufficient.  This offers
> a different take, one that you might not have seen.  Now
> seems a good time to post it.
>
>
> There are several types of emacs users, including these:
>
>   1) (UNDOERS) those for whom "undo the undo" works well
>   2) (REDOERS) those who would prefer undo-redo
>
> There are several types of undoers, including these:
>
>   1) those who want to understand what the redoers are
>      saying
>   2) those who understand what the redoers are saying, but
>      personally do not experience the problem
>   3) those who are confident that they understand what the
>      redoers are saying, but actually have no idea
>
> The goal of this post is to turn type 1 into type 2.  None
> other.

I'm confused. Do you have a problem with the current undo? If so why
not fix it? Why the "education"?

Your post seems to be trying to convince versus educate.

If your purpose was to show me how you work and convince me you're not
happy with the status quo, I guess you made your point.  As for
education I don't know anything I didn't before. I've seen many people
who wished emacs worked differently and I didn't really see anything
new here. Your demo doesn't reflect my use so it's hard to learn or
conclude much. If I worked like that I guess I'd set about fixing my
problem. I'm aware others use emacs differently and want changes so I
guess I didn't really learn much. As for undo I'm agnostic; I don't
have a problem but if it changed I'd have to see the change to decide
if it was OK with me or posed a problem.