Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!mit-eddie!uw-beaver!rice!kalliope!bbc
From: bbc@titan.rice.edu (Benjamin Chase)
Newsgroups: gnu.emacs.bug
Subject: Re: repeat counts and ^X )
Message-ID: <BBC.89Jul14033223@titan.rice.edu>
Date: 14 Jul 89 08:32:23 GMT
References: <8907131506.AA19427@dsys.ncsl.nist.gov>
Sender: usenet@rice.edu
Distribution: gnu
Organization: Rice University
Lines: 32
In-reply-to: rbj@DSYS.NCSL.NIST.GOV's message of 13 Jul 89 15:06:53 GMT

In the following,
	Rbj is rbj@DSYS.NCSL.NIST.GOV (Root Boy Jim)
	Ray is ray@GIBBS.PHYSICS.PURDUE.EDU (Ray Moody)

Me:
  I think the notion of supplying the repeat count to end-kbd-macro
  was wrong in the first place.  Although it requires more
  forethought, it seems sensible to me to supply the repeat count [to
  start-kbd-macro] before starting the macro definition.

Rbj:
  Or after it via C-x e. This is one case where I believe repeat
  counts are a mis-feature.
  [Side discussion about unused coke-bottle bindings, etc.]

Me:
  Yes, via a repeat count to call-last-kbd-macro.  One thing at a
  time, and could you please refer to the function names, rather than
  their bindings in the future?

Ray:
  But supplying a repeat count to start-kbd-macro means to append to
  the last macro definition instead of defining a new keyboard macro.

Me:
  Well, hey, let's change the world then.  I'd say that having the repeat
  count mean "repeat" is more obvious than having it mean "append to
  the previous macro".  Perhaps we need a function called
  append-kbd-macro to handle that job?
--

	Ben Chase, Computer Science, Rice University, Houston, Texas