Re: Patches item #1729825 ready to go.

[Daniel J S. <dan...@ie...>]

Ethan Merritt wrote:
> On Monday 04 June 2007 15:19, Daniel J Sebald wrote:
> 
>>Daniel J Sebald wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Well, it could be programmed that way [but what user keeps typing replot; replot 
>>>without making any changes in between? :-)].  The "do not put redundant commands 
>>>in the history stack" as gnuplot currently behaves has the same problem you're 
>>>pointing out.
>>
>>Keep in mind with an option
>>
>>   set history {full|condensed} {quiet|numbered}
>>
>>it could be
>>
>>   1 foo = 35
>>   2 plot x*foo
>>   3 foo = 25
>>   4 plot x*foo
>>   5 history
>>   6 foo = 20
>>   7 plot x*foo
>>   8 history
>>
>>or
>>
>>   1 foo = 35
>>   3 foo = 25
>>   6 foo = 20
>>   7 plot x*foo
>>   8 history
> 
> 
> The logic here escapes me.
> Why are the "plot x*foo" commands any more redundant than the
> "foo = baz" commands?

No argument here.

Another reason for keeping the stack always in order as typed is so that the 
up-arrow recall maintains an order.  (Often a lot of my patterns at the linux 
command line are derived from how many times I hit up-arrow to recall a 
command... easier to do than describe.)


   Even apart from the fact that one version
> can produce 3 windows on my screen, and the other only 1, what
> happens if "foo" has side-effects?  These two sequences of
> commands are not equivalent.
> 
> OK, I can understand not putting the "history" command on the
> history stack.  But everything else should remain visible.

Could do that easily.  In the above case everything is still on the stack, it's 
just how the stack is displayed.  I know you might not like it, but Petr does 
and so might others.

Dan