Titus von der Malsburg <[email protected]> writes: > I think there are two issues: > > - the variable size of undo steps > - the error when redoing.
Yes, but one makes the other more serious. > The first issue arises from the fact that Evil considers anything that > happens from entering insert mode until leaving it as one edit. That was I thought until I observed, multiple times, how undo worked one char at a time after writing some text. No mode change, no cursor movement, just writing text and then undoing. I'm not so sure about this, but I also observed how undo removes multiple chunks of text that were written with mode changes and cursor movements in between. [snip] > The second issue is the error that you're observing when redoing. I > never encountered this problem. This happens every other month, but it hurts. There are other problems on undo-tree, although not of the data-loss type. It looks quite unreliable to me. IIRC the author explained on emacs-devel that some characteristics of Emacs' undo implementation made things difficult for him. I still don't know if not using undo-tree has consequences on Evil's behavior, apart from going back to traditional Emacs undo features, but let's assume that there is no problem, so I'll ditch undo-tree. _______________________________________________ implementations-list mailing list [email protected] https://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/implementations-list
