RE: Menu commands to M-x history?

[Drew Adams]

> > Well, that's exactly the question we're discussing:
> > 1. Whether it is useful to include commands invoked using 
> >    the menu in M-x's history.
> > 2. If so, whether to do that by default or only on demand.
> >
> > You and I say it can be useful (1); some others have seemed 
> > to say no. You say this should be the default behavior (2);
> > I say no. Neither of us is arguing from the point of view of
> > implementers. All arguments so far have been in terms of
> > usefulness to users. We just disagree.
> 
> Then please don't use arguments like "As someone else said, `M-x' is,
> well, for `M-x'-executed commands". By that it looks like you imply
> there is a very special semantics behind it that we should follow.
> (You can of course use such language, but just throw it away when you
> can't defend it.)

No, by that I meant that it makes sense (IMO), for a _user_, to have the history
candidates for M-x be the same commands that s?he in fact has input using `M-x'.

M-x's history contains those commands that M-x executed. That is what I meant by
"`M-x' is for `M-x'-executed commands".

This has nothing to do with implementation (for me). It has to do with how
pertinent the history should be for the particular call to `completing-read'.
That's the question and our disagreement: how pertinent are menu-invoked
commands to M-x completion. You say they are completely pertinent; I say they
are somewhat pertinent; others seem to be saying (or not saying) that they are
not at all pertinent.

> >> Really nothing more than that the argument the M-x history 
> >> is for "M-x executed commands" is useless. It focuses more on the 
> >> programming side than on the user.
> >
> > I don't see why. As a user, I want to see, by default, the 
> > commands I have already entered as input to M-x.
> 
> Maybe. I don't think that is true for all users since I have seen this
> implemented in other places (not in Emacs and I don't remember where
> now).
> 
> Perhaps there should be an option for this then.

Perhaps. Perhaps the 3 levels I mentioned. Even then, should the option control
the default behavior, or should the levels always be available on demand during
completion?

If the former, what should the default value be? If you don't succeed in
convincing others that menu items should be included _by default_, do you want
to require newbies to customize the option or teach them that they can get menu
items too by hitting a key?

> To me it seems very strange to put all commands called from
> call-interactively there so I am not proposing that.

OK. You didn't. I suggested it.
 
> Yes, it is not very important. I am just looking for an argument from
> you that I can find valid in this context. I have found two arguments
> (that I remember) so far:
> 
> - The length of the history list
> - A surprising content of the history list

Do you include in the second of those the close correspondence of M-x input and
M-x history? If so, OK.

> As I have said above I think I have good arguments against them, but
> you obviously think different.

Yes. But I don't think convincing me is your biggest obstacle. I don't see
anyone else even agreeing that menu-invoked commands can be useful in the
history.