From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mod.civil.su.OZ.AU ([129.78.142.6]) by hawkwind.utcs.toronto.edu with SMTP id <2408>; Tue, 12 Jan 1993 22:47:14 -0500 Received: by mod.civil.su.oz.au id <28687>; Wed, 13 Jan 1993 14:46:45 +1100 From: John (Most modern computers would break if you stood on them) Mackin Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 22:41:05 -0500 To: Sam Fans Subject: undo and the snarf buffer Message-ID: <199301131441.8607.sam.babot@civil.su.oz.au> X-Face: 39seV7n\`#asqOFdx#oj/Uz*lseO_1n9n7rQS;~ve\e`&Z},nU1+>0X^>mg&M.^X$[ez>{F k5[Ah<7xBWF-@-ru?& @4K4-b`ydd^`(n%Z{ This is something I have been wondering about for a couple of years, and since just noticed it again I thought I'd see what people think. At the moment, doing "undo" on button two doesn't affect the contents of the snarf buffer. I think there is a good argument that it should. On the theoretical side, you're asking sam to restore its state to a previous state. That shouldn't be just the state of the buffer being edited, it should be all the state you can get at. On the practical side, this bites me when I do a "cut" accidentally when I meant a "paste". What I think I should be able to do is "undo" just once -- which would undo the cut -and- back out the snarf buffer to have what it had before the cut was done -- and then do "paste". Instead I have to re-snarf what I had before, which often involves undoing further back to get it back in the buffer again if I had cut it originally. Thoughts? OK, John.