Re: pasting many times

[Dieter Wilhelm]

David Kastrup <dak@gnu.org> writes:

...

>>>>     And when we are at it.  I do not understand why M-y depends on C-y at
>>>>     all, lets just take the second entry of kill-ring by default and third
>>>>     and fourth and so on?
>>>
> I'd start M-y with the first entry of the kill-ring.  It would
> probably make M-y more popular than C-y, but people might learn to
> live with that.  It would probably also make sense to have C-y accept
> a multiplier argument (probably more expected) while letting M-y
> accept a stack pointer argument.

It might be more consistent with Emacs conventions but I suggest this
because we are getting more functionality and yet the users is getting
a smoother transition from the previous definition.

Are you concerned because of the default interactive argument which is
1?  Hmm, couldn't we apply the c counting convention for the kill
ring: 0 is the current kill (the first entry) 1 the previous one and
so on?  It is just a matter of the proper documentation, isn't it?

>
> So if you were certain to need only the most recent kill, you'd use
> C-y, and if you _might_ want a different kill, you'd use M-y.

Exactly, so far I can only discern an extension of functionality and
no disadvantages compared to the current handling of C-y and M-y.

Let's see what happens now in Baurzhan's case:

You press the C-key for the interactive arguments (they work with C-
as well with M-) then 59 and then y.  This means 4 key presses
compared to vim's 5 (ESC 59p i).  (OK, this is the worst case for vim
but I guess statistically it'd be a draw between the two editors 8-)

-- 
    Best wishes

    H. Dieter Wilhelm
    Darmstadt, Germany