emacs-devel
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Undo mode


From: Eli Zaretskii
Subject: Re: Undo mode
Date: Sat, 22 Jan 2022 09:11:50 +0200

> Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2022 20:58:54 +0000
> From: Gregory Heytings <gregory@heytings.org>
> cc: luangruo@yahoo.com, juri@linkov.net, emacs-devel@gnu.org
> 
> >> 1. All File menu items are shifted to the right because of a single 
> >> checkbox.
> >
> > Doesn't sound too bad to me.
> 
> It depends on the toolkit you use I guess.  With Lucid the effect is 
> awful, see attached screenshots.
> 
> > We have the same in Text menu, for example.
> 
> Perhaps we're looking at different Text menus, but I see five entries in 
> that menu, two of which have a checkbox.

Yes, and how is this different from File?  Some items have the
checkbox, others don't, and all of them are shifted to the right as
result.

> >> 2. The "Undelete Frame" item appears and disappears, instead of being 
> >> disabled and enabled.
> >
> > That's easy to change, but why is it better to show it disabled instead 
> > of not showing it at all?
> 
> It's what happens elsewhere in that menu and in others, some items are 
> disabled or enabled depending on whether their corresponding action can be 
> performed, but none disappear when their corresponding action cannot be 
> performed, at least not in the standard menus.

That's factually untrue: there are several menu items that disappear
when they are not relevant.  Examples: "New Frame on Monitor...",
"Close Tab", and a few others.  But okay, I've now changed this
particular entry to be always present.

> >> 3. The frame undeletion items uses two entries in the File menu, IMO 
> >> that's one too much, and with the proposed options 1 and 2 it uses only 
> >> one.
> >
> > That's not a separate issue, so I don't think it counts.
> 
> What do you mean?

I mean if we add an item, there's one more item as a consequence.  So
the number of items is not a separate issue.

> My conclusion so far is that the most reasonable compromise would be to 
> use the second patch (attached again).

Given that I made the change above, I see no reason to change anything
else at this time.



reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]