Re: Re: v6: still no multiple undo?
- To: mathgroup at smc.vnet.net
- Subject: [mg77748] Re: [mg77693] Re: v6: still no multiple undo?
- From: Andrzej Kozlowski <akoz at mimuw.edu.pl>
- Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2007 03:21:16 -0400 (EDT)
- References: <200706080938.FAA03696@smc.vnet.net> <200706090943.FAA17991@smc.vnet.net> <email@example.com> <06D466A7-0D44-40DB-ACB5-F488E9D2B08B@mimuw.edu.pl> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <14694989.1181527374589.JavaMail.root@m35> <email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <200706131132.HAA06874@smc.vnet.net> <email@example.com> <200706150829.EAA15717@smc.vnet.net>
On 15 Jun 2007, at 17:29, David wrote: Everything I wrote still seems very clear to me, but since there is at least one person who thinks otherwise, I will try to make it even clearer. T 1. First, let's imagine the most optimistic scenario. A complete multiple undo of everything in Mathematica, at 0 cost in performance and all developed by one of WRI's brilliant programmers outside work hours (just out of kindness or for fun) in order to make a free gift to all Mathematica users. Would I be against it? No way! I don't normally refuse free gifts (in case anyone was wondering) and I am sure I would find a good use for this sort of thing. Even if, instead fo the above, we were offered only a multiple undo of input text only, but also at no cost in performance or development time, I would not have any problems with it (even though I can't remember ever having found myself missing this feature). 2. On the other hand: even the most perfect multiple undo is unacceptable to me if it is going to make my computer unusable. I change my computer (I only work on Mac laptops) approximately every 3 years and I always find that near the end of this period it feels slower than my ancient Mac Plus (which I still have). I have no desire and can't really afford to reduce the length of this cycle. 3. As for the feature itself, I would of course like to have it under the conditions described in point 1, but other than that I can think of many other features I would rather have instead. I could, at this point, start listing them, but that would really be off topic and would require more time and space than I am willing to devote to this issue. Andrzej Kozlowski > > You asked for a quote... one of your posts is one of those that would > seem to argue against multi-level undo because it might slow down your > computer or the WRI developers from more important tasks. If you're > not > arguing against, then I don't understand why you posted to this thread > and why you made the following statements. > > ---Andjez Koslowski wrote:--- > > 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 > > --- > > I will not reply to any future dissections of my posts by you. > >