Ticket #27 (new task) — at Initial Version
savannah: undo grouping wanted
Reported by: | slavazanko | Owned by: | |
---|---|---|---|
Priority: | minor | Milestone: | 4.7.5 |
Component: | mcedit | Version: | master |
Keywords: | Cc: | tux@… | |
Blocked By: | Blocking: | ||
Branch state: | merged | Votes for changeset: |
Description
Original: http://savannah.gnu.org/bugs/?13739
Submitted by: | Oswald Buddenhagen <ossi> | Submitted on: | Mon 11 Jul 2005 09:24:04 PM UTC |
Category: | Editor | Severity: | 3 - Normal |
Status: | None | Privacy: | Public |
Assigned to: | None | Open/Closed: | Open |
Release: | current (CVS or snapshot) | Operating System: | All |
Discussion:
Mon 11 Jul 2005 09:24:04 PM UTC, original submission: this is a very controversial topic, so i'm missing the "put flameshield on before joining thread" warning checkbox. :) there are actually two main questions: - are movements actions? for me, definitely yes. i hate editors that just pretend that there are no movements when it comes to undo. - undo grouping should roughly predict what the user probably wants to undo at once, without grouping too much. i suggest an action/time /space based grouping: - if the user switches to another "action sequence" (inserting/overwriting, deleting, navigating, maybe more), he certainly wants it separated from the previous sequence - if he makes a longer break while doing things, he probably expects it when undoing as well. what "longer" means is very subjective; a simple adaptive algorithm might make sense - small moves are merged, while big ones aren't. i'm not even sure what the criteria should be here. maybe moves should be generally merged and we should only depend on the other two "break conditions".
Note: See
TracTickets for help on using
tickets.