RE: Menu commands to M-x history?

[Drew Adams]

> Matthias said:
>     Quite often I execute the same M-x
>     command over and over again, doing something else in 
>     between, and if what I did in between included executing
>     some menu commands I might be annoyed to have to step back
>     some extra steps in order to get at the command I want to run.
> 
> exactly why is it useful to distinguish between commands started
> from the menu and from M-x

As someone else said, `M-x' is, well, for `M-x'-executed commands. That's
important for users. It is why commands executed using key bindings are also not
included in the history list.

Besides this difference in intention (meaning of M-x), there is the difference
in noise level. If you had to search a history for every command you ever
executed, including every key you pressed (C-f, C-k,...), the search history
would be much less useful.

So, I hear you say, filter out insignificant commands - commands such as
`self-insert-command' and `forward-char'. Then where do you draw the line? One
person's aid is another person's noise.

The current criterion of recording the commands actually entered using `M-x' is
a good one, and should be kept. Access to additional commands should be
optional, on demand.

> Drew, I think you see what I mean. This reasoning just gets overlay
> complicated to actually use IMO.

Why? The only change is to provide some key to let you access the additional
commands.

Icicles uses `C-M-pause' for that, which is admittedly exotic. ;-) But Emacs
could choose a simpler key.

(Icicles has lots of minibuffer key bindings, and this one is less simple
because it is not as important as some others. That doesn't mean the idea isn't
simple.)

> Just putting the menu commands in the M-x history (+ displaying a
> comment about it) is simple, easy to understand and make the coupling
> between M-x and the menus visible to new users too.

See above. Such a coupling is not helpful as the default behavior.

> And it also have the advantage that it is much easier to redo
> commands that are rather deep down in the menus.

As opposed to what? Easier to redo than what alternative - using the menu again?

If that's what you mean, then we agree: It can help users if we also provide
completion for commands originally accessed using a menu. The question we seem
to disagree about is whether those commands should be available for completion
_by default_, that is, as part of the normal `M-x' command history.