On Tue, May 25, 2010 at 21:04, Christian J. Robinson <hept...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, 25 May 2010, Nikolai Weibull wrote: > >> And no one forced you to defend this feature. > > True, nobody is forcing anybody to defend the feature, but what do you > expect to happen when you complain about it?
I figured that “That said, I think persistent undo is more or less useless and, well, just a big pile of potential problems. Persistent undo is in the version control system, not in the editor.” is me stating an opinion about it, not saying “please remove it”. >> Why does everyone have to come in and say basically the same thing in >> response to my opinion? > Why do you have to state, and re-state your opinion in the first place? I gave what I considered to be the deeper solution to a problem that one user figured that persistent undo would bring and that was to keep edits local. That someone chose to only focus on the fact that I said that I thought persistent undo was a non-solution was where it started. >> It’s not like I’m suggesting that it be removed. > Again I have to ask: Then why did you complain at all? Because I like complaining and because the person that responded to my post was too dismissive. > To me it seems like you're implying that since it can't be perfect--by YOUR > definition of perfection, for YOUR use cases--that it shouldn't be there at > all. Oh, was that what I implied? I didn’t realize. Perhaps I missed reading one of my posts. (See below for a discussion on what I actually wanted to imply.) >> I’m just stating the claim that what you really want is real version >> control, not a half-assed form of it. > Yes, I agree that there will be problems, and that it's yet another feature, > and so on. It still has merit, and considering it's #4 on the voting page > means that a lot of people think so. > (http://www.vim.org/sponsor/vote_results.php) Which doesn’t necessarily mean that it will be as useful as those people may hope. > Version control has its place, and this feature has its place. Just because > it can't always be shared doesn't make it "useless," as you stated in an > earlier reply. (Of course, you also said "only a bit useful" in another > reply--which is it?) Strawman, much? “I think persistent undo is more or less useless” is what I initially wrote, followed by “persistent undo is in the version control system, not in the editor”, which I figured would imply that my point was that persistent undo is the wrong solution to the problem. -- You received this message from the "vim_dev" maillist. Do not top-post! Type your reply below the text you are replying to. For more information, visit http://www.vim.org/maillist.php
