MathGroup Archive 2007

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

Search the Archive

Re: v6: still no multiple undo?

  • To: mathgroup at
  • Subject: [mg77589] Re: v6: still no multiple undo?
  • From: Will Robertson <wspr81 at>
  • Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2007 07:38:47 -0400 (EDT)
  • References: <>

On Jun 11, 5:37 pm, DrMajorBob <drmajor... at> wrote:
> As computers get faster and hard-disks get larger, bloated code is the  
> least of our problems, and slow code in the front end is not much bigger.  
> Multiple undo is a poor use of WRI's time (in the complicated notebook  
> environment), for a different reason (I'll get to it).

Wow. Multiple undo is bloat.
As opposed to a visual representation of a notebook as it has changed
over time, but which can't be used to actually roll back to previous

> What if the sequence was bad change, good change, bad, good, good. Won't  
> multiple undo lose more good changes than bad?

What if the sequence was good bad bad bad bad?
The thing is, you want to give people the option -- your example plays
to the workflow that you're suggesting, keeping multiple documents and
cells lying around just to save the progress of your work.

The complaints about implementing undo being complicated because of
the kernel miss the point. I don't really care about rolling back the
state of the kernel. It's cell input *that I make* that I want to be
able to remove. Like the case when I make a mistake and go to hit Ctrl-
Z but type "Z" instead. Bam, there goes my precious undo.

I concede that this would be possibly confusing if you undo an
assignment and then forget about it. But that wouldn't outweight the
convenience of being able to do so in the first place.

Best regards,

  • Prev by Date: NDSolve, Loop, Table, Plot
  • Next by Date: Re: Normally Distributed Random Matrix
  • Previous by thread: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: v6: still no multiple undo?
  • Next by thread: Re: v6: still no multiple undo?