Re: Re: Re: Re: v6: still no multiple undo?
- To: mathgroup at smc.vnet.net
- Subject: [mg77489] Re: [mg77476] Re: [mg77433] Re: [mg77407] Re: v6: still no multiple undo?
- From: "Chris Chiasson" <chris at chiasson.name>
- Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2007 07:21:11 -0400 (EDT)
- References: <200706080938.FAA03696@smc.vnet.net>
I disagree with the article. If the older software were really better, then everyone would still be using it. On 6/9/07, Andrzej Kozlowski <akoz at mimuw.edu.pl> wrote: > I understand that thera are many people would like have WRI implement > in Mathematica one or more of their favourite features of other > programs. After all, we all now have multi-gigaherz processors, > gigabytes of RAM etc, and wouldn't it be great if Mathematica could > do all the things that all these other programs do? You might even > not need them any more. > However, this kind of approach has its price and to see this clearly > I suggest that, before submitting another request for another "great > feature you can't live without", everyone reads this: > > http://hubpages.com/hub/ > _86_Mac_Plus_Vs_07_AMD_DualCore_You_Wont_Believe_Who_Wins > > and thinks again if this price is really worth paying. > > > Andrzej Kozlowski > > > On 8 Jun 2007, at 18:38, Barthelet, Luc wrote: > > > > > While I strongly support that multiple undo is a feature we need to > > see > > soon, it will take some real work to get there. > > > > The editor, and the kernels are linked in an efficient exchange of > > messages > > and information about what needs to be displayed where and when. > > > > While implementing multiple undo-redo in a stand alone editor usually > > requires only to implement a tokenized undo-redo, in the v6 font > > end, it > > will require a more complex model. It is a bit like if you were > > trying to > > implement multiple undo on a wiki site like wikipedia where they are > > multiple contributors. > > > > We probably do not want the kernel to "undo", just the front end. > > So one > > solution would be to make the kernel and the user to appear as a > > single > > contributor, and to undo both effects on the front end. So one undo > > might > > remove an output created by the kernel. > > > > Even that is challenging, because Dynamics now create a lot of > > updates and > > you will not want to roll those back. > > > > Anyway, the front end team is obviously smart enough to find a > > solution for > > all those things, but it is not going to be easy. > > > > A cheap thing that I would like to see, is a text buffer of all my > > input and > > all the code I deleted saved as a log on disk. It might be ugly, > > but it > > would be VERY USEFUL. > > > > Cheers, > > > > Luc > > > > > > On 6/7/07 3:34 AM, "David Bailey" <dave at Remove_Thisdbailey.co.uk> > > wrote: > > > >> David wrote: > >>> Will Robertson wrote: > >>>> Hello, > >>>> > >>>> I am baffled that technical software is released in 2007 with > >>>> only a > >>>> single undo level. Am I missing something here? Is it because I'm > >>>> using a student license? How hard can an undo stack really be in > >>>> the > >>>> notebook interface? > >>>> > >>>> I've been irritated a few times in v5.2 from clumsy keypresses > >>>> losing > >>>> me work that I would expect to be two "undo"s away. Alas not. > >>>> Still. > >>>> > >>>> Will Robertson > >>>> > >>>> > >>> > >>> Good point! I've wondered the same thing for a long time. This is > >>> the > >>> only app I run that doesn't happen multiple levels of undo. I > >>> think it's > >>> time WRI spent some time on this issue. > >>> > >> How much time could it possibly take! Once you have a 1-level undo > >> working, all you need to do is spill the relevant data into a > >> structure > >> - possibly on disk - and retrieve it as needed! > >> > >> David Bailey > >> http://www.dbaileyconsultancy.co.uk > >> > > > > > > > -- http://chris.chiasson.name/
- Re: Re: v6: still no multiple undo?
- From: "Barthelet, Luc" <email@example.com>
- Re: Re: v6: still no multiple undo?