MathGroup Archive 2007

[Date Index] [Thread Index] [Author Index]

Search the Archive

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: v6: still no multiple undo?

  • To: mathgroup at
  • Subject: [mg77501] Re: [mg77495] Re: [mg77476] Re: [mg77433] Re: [mg77407] Re: v6: still no multiple undo?
  • From: DrMajorBob <drmajorbob at>
  • Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2007 04:18:06 -0400 (EDT)
  • References: <> <> <> <> <> <14694989.1181527374589.JavaMail.root@m35> <> <4809601.1181531584723.JavaMail.root@m35>
  • Reply-to: drmajorbob at

In Excel, if you copy a cell into another cell, you've also changed it,  
usually; I like layered undo in that situation. Excel is a much easier  
environment in which to PROVIDE multiple undo, too.

Overall, though, I agree with Andrzej that good work habits are the best  
protection against errors.


On Sun, 10 Jun 2007 22:12:49 -0500, Andrzej Kozlowski <akoz at>  

> I agree. I think lots of "features" of programs like word-processors,  
> spread-sheets etc., would not be needed if people were willing simply to  
> adjust sensibly their working habits. They would gain better performance  
> and better working habits.
> Andrzej Kozlowski
> On 11 Jun 2007, at 11:58, DrMajorBob wrote:
>> If I have useful stuff in a cell, but I need to edit it, and I'm afraid  
>> I might delete things I need, add things I don't need, change things  
>> that are already perfect... well...
>> I just copy the cell and paste it above or below, and I edit the copy,  
>> leaving the original alone!
>> Or, if there's a lot of editing going on, I copy/save the whole file!
>> Later, when I've gotten moronic and made a mistake (it happens!), the  
>> original is still there. I can copy/paste between the two versions  
>> until I'm happy, the code's happy, and nobody else cares!
>> That's WAY more flexible than multiple undo could ever be, isn't it??
>> I mean, what if the change three layers back was bad, but the last TWO  
>> changes were great (and time-consuming)? How can undo help with that?  
>> How can I even keep track of which changes were good and which were  
>> bad, with undo? I can't!
>> WRI already provided copy, cut, paste, color-codes for missing brackets  
>> and undefined symbols, automatic structure-based indentation... haven't  
>> they done enough?
>> Really, at some point, you gotta wonder... could it BE any sweeter than  
>> this?
>> Bobby
>> On Sun, 10 Jun 2007 06:24:17 -0500, Andrzej Kozlowski  
>> <akoz at> wrote:
>>> On 9 Jun 2007, at 20:12, Chris Chiasson wrote:
>>>> On 6/9/07, Andrzej Kozlowski <akoz at> wrote:
>>>>> *This message was transferred with a trial version of CommuniGate
>>>>> (tm) Pro*
>>>>> The idea that people always run the best software they could seems
>>>>> rather doubtful to me, but is completely  irrelevant. I think you
>>>>> completely missed the point of the article, which does not claim the
>>>>> older software was better, but only that a lot of new software
>>>>> (certainly not all) is "bloated" - a completely different thing. Did
>>>>> you really think that the reason I posted this link was because I
>>>>> would rather use Mathematica 1 than Mathematica 6?
>>>> Andrzej Kozlowski,
>>>> I read the article when it was linked from (I think) Slashdot a while
>>>> ago, so I have had time to think about it and form an opinion.
>>>> Basically, I do believe that software bloat does exist. However, many
>>>> features, while they may be computationally inefficient, are actually
>>>> quite convenient and useful. How many times have you lost something
>>>> beyond the first undo level in Mathematica? Wouldn't multiple undo
>>>> levels have been useful? I understand that the feature will decrease
>>>> performance (even further, heh), but I do not think the optimum
>>>> balance of features vs. performance has been attained here.
>>>> Sincerely,
>>>> --
>>> There are a few features that are useful to everyone, and there are
>>> many that are useful only to some but (unless they are made somehow
>>> optional), will slow down everyone, forcing people either to get new
>>> hardware or give up other features that they really need by having to
>>> stick with older versions.
>>> I agree that a multiple undo would occasionally be useful, but I
>>> certainly would not pay the price of having my computer paralyzed for
>>> a few minutes every time time I save. Besides, I can think of many
>>> other features, more directly relevant to the main purpose of
>>> Mathematica, that I would rather have than this one. Of course a
>>> simple kind of multiple undo, one that only undoes typing and not
>>> evaluation, might not present any problems, though it would hardly be
>>> worth making so much fuss about. Anything that would bring my
>>> computer to a halt is unacceptable to me, however nice it might be
>>> for people who  alsways have the latest hardware. All I wanted to
>>> point out is that there is also this aspect to features like this one
>>> and I hope that WRI does not forget about it when designing new
>>> versions.
>>> Andrzej Kozlowski
>> --DrMajorBob at

DrMajorBob at

  • Prev by Date: Re: Re: Re: Re: v6: still no multiple undo?
  • Next by Date: Indefinite Integral
  • Previous by thread: Re: Re: Re: Re: v6: still no multiple undo?
  • Next by thread: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: v6: still no multiple undo?