[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
bug#16411: undo-only bugs
From: |
Barry OReilly |
Subject: |
bug#16411: undo-only bugs |
Date: |
Tue, 14 Jan 2014 09:00:14 -0500 |
> >> Actually, this makes me realize the solution to bug 1 is
> >> inadequate. Calling (undo-primitive 1) N times creates N redo
> >> records whereas (undo-primitive N) creates one.
> > No, primitive-undo does not add any undo boundary.
> Actually, now I'm not sure what you meant by "redo records".
> (primitive-undo N) will undo all the M "records" that appear before
> the next Nth undo boundary, and will correspondingly add M redo
> "records", but no boundary.
I took another look at the code and see I was mistaken on this point.
I'll work on a patch.
- bug#16411: undo-only bugs, Barry OReilly, 2014/01/10
- bug#16411: undo-only bugs, Stefan Monnier, 2014/01/10
- bug#16411: undo-only bugs, Barry OReilly, 2014/01/10
- bug#16411: undo-only bugs, Stefan Monnier, 2014/01/10
- bug#16411: undo-only bugs, Barry OReilly, 2014/01/11
- bug#16411: undo-only bugs, Stefan Monnier, 2014/01/13
- bug#16411: undo-only bugs, Stefan Monnier, 2014/01/13
- bug#16411: undo-only bugs,
Barry OReilly <=
- bug#16411: undo-only bugs, Barry OReilly, 2014/01/18
- bug#16411: undo-only bugs, Stefan Monnier, 2014/01/18
- bug#16411: undo-only bugs, Barry OReilly, 2014/01/19