C Y <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I never intended to restrict ALL keys I agree, it's the right way, because it's almost impossible to lock ALL emacs keys.
So axiom-mode MUST be able to recognize that the cursor is outside an input area. > > // 2 // > > Can you detect the real area (input-command, output-command) ? > Sorry, I don't understand what you are asking here. I speak about the buffer-region from one prompt to the next one. > What should happen if you do that (if I follow you correctly) is > something like the following: > You mean the following? > > (1) -> 123 > (1) 123 > (2) -> 999123 > (2) 999123 > (3) -> [cursor] Yes > Right now it is not. I specifically wanted to overwrite old > input-output combinations, like most modern notebook interfaces. > Are you saying you want to be unable to overwrite any input-output > combination? Yes. I prefer to keep previous commands on the terminal because I really see what I (and students) type before the last correction. So I find the errors more quickly. > In my experience that usually leads to messy workspaces. > The commands are present in the history if you wish to recall them - is > something more needed? > What do you mean by "real input?" (1) is gone, except perhaps > somewhere in Axiom's memory. Why do you want to view it again? It's nice to see it always because it's perhaps somewhere in Axiom's memory. So I find the bugs of my students if I see the history. With maple my students do : k := 3 ; [q[k] $ k=1..4] ; Maple gives an error, and I find it much more quickly if I see the old line k := 3. > The whole point of being able to re-evaluate old inputs, in my view, is to > overwrite them. Otherwise, why not use the new input prompt at the > end? > > I'm not sure how to capture a string from the buffer and put it in a > variable - is "the-string 1+23" a way to do this? (buffer-substring 1 122) get the beginning of the buffer. (setq var (buffer-substring 1 122)) > Yes, that might be a way to do it, but personally I prefer NOT to have > that behavior. I might be able to work out something as an option, but > can I ask why you want this? I understand your point of view. If you want short workspace, it's also possible to hide only the output with a delete-region, and put the substring of the deleted region in the prompt with put-text-property. And get it back again with a (insert (get-text-property...)) if the user wants to make it visible again. I use maple too often and I disapprove interfaces with re-evaluate. And for my use I prefer buffer where nothing can be change after the computation, as a typewriter. > Yes, that might be a way to do it, but personally I prefer NOT to have > that behavior. I accept your point of view, but try to keep the _possibility_ to have an axiom-mode where re-evaluate is impossible. > > // 6 // > > Must I get the same result > > with commint-mode / commint-run / axiom and axiom-mode ? > > Um - what were you hoping for? Do you mean you WANT the same result? I have no hope, I only want to know if I can compare axiom-mode result and comint result in order to understand how axiom-mode is working. You make a really big work. Continue to send new versions, I try to understand axiom-mode.el with the diff command. Francois _______________________________________________ Axiom-developer mailing list Axiom-developer@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/axiom-developer
