Services & Resources / Wolfram Forums
-----
 /
MathGroup Archive
2007
*January
*February
*March
*April
*May
*June
*July
*August
*September
*October
*Archive Index
*Ask about this page
*Print this page
*Give us feedback
*Sign up for the Wolfram Insider

MathGroup Archive 2007

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

Search the Archive

Re: Multiple UNDO - a simple proposal

  • To: mathgroup at smc.vnet.net
  • Subject: [mg78075] Re: Multiple UNDO - a simple proposal
  • From: carsten_herrmann1 at gmx.net
  • Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2007 06:42:56 -0400 (EDT)
  • References: <f531d6$1uf$1@smc.vnet.net>

let me express a "feeling" - I know that here is not really the place
for feeling s -

the problem of missing undo may als be related to the missing process
completion status bar for Mathematica evaluations

could that be the case ?

carsten


On 17 Jun., 12:11, David Bailey <dave at Remove_Thisdbailey.co.uk> wrote:
> Much has been written about the complexity involved in implementing
> multiple undo in a Mathematica notebook.
>
> Obviously a notebook can receive changes from several sources - the user
> typing, and various forms of data emanating from the kernel. However,
> 99% of the time, the user is concerned with  recovering his input cells
> that he may have spent hours crafting. Computers are so stable nowadays,
> and multiple undo is so effective in most applications, that many users
> no longer think in terms of saving their work regularly. In past
> versions of Mathematica, any crashes were pretty much confined to the
> kernel, but with 6.0 it seems to be easier to crash the FE - and with
> it, any unsaved work!
>
> Why not compromise and say that no cell will have an undo chain if it:
>
> 1) Contains Dynamic constructs.
>
> 2) Is an Output cell.
>
> 3) Contains any other specified features that WRI find cause problems.
>
> Undo points will only be placed at points where the kernel is at idle.
> As an additional simplification, possibly the user would have to choose
> between the multiple undo feature and the freedom to continue typing
> while the kernel is executing a command.
>
> I would suggest that the undo information should be buffered on disk at
> frequent intervals so that an FE crash would be less disastrous. I
> suspect that the occasional FE crash is an inevitable consequence of the
> very dynamic coupling between kernel and FE that now pertains. Indeed,
> it was one such crash that prompted me to write this post!
>
> David Baileyhttp://www.dbaileyconsultancy.co.uk




  • Prev by Date: Re: Mind+Mathematica
  • Next by Date: Re: RE: : 6.0 Get Graphics Coordinates...
  • Previous by thread: Multiple UNDO - a simple proposal
  • Next by thread: is there a better way to iterate this?