Re: If undo-only why not a redo-only?

[Stefan Monnier]

> 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)

Yes, that's what `undo-only` and `undo-redo` attempt to provide, IIUC.
Have you bumped into problems with them?


        Stefan