On Tue, Jul 03, 2012 at 05:18:50PM -0700, Samuel Wales wrote: > On 7/3/12, Stefan Monnier <monn...@iro.umontreal.ca> wrote: > >> self-insert-command. Even just turning that magic 20 number into a > >> variable would help. > > > > Providing it as a variable would be very easy, indeed. > > Therefore, IF we have that variable, then undo-boundary considerations > should be simply to DTRT for undo-tree, org-self-insert-command, > and other code, in such a way that subtle bugs are prevented.
Just to clarify the situation with undo-tree: it doesn't care how or when undo boundaries are inserted, and never did. The problem was only that undo boundaries that had nothing to do with self-insert-command were being *deleted*, due to the subtle interaction between the new Emacs-24 self-insert-command and org-mode's org-self-insert-cluster-for-undo feature. I've already pushed a change to the git version of undo-tree to make it work even if something else deletes undo boundaries that it shouldn't have touched (e.g. org-mode + Emacs-24). Deleting boundaries that have nothing to do with self-insert-command is still a bug, in my opinion, but it's a bug that no longer has catastrophic consequences in undo-tree-mode. It sounds from the preceding discussion that the right solution is simply to disable org-self-insert-cluster-for-undo in Emacs-24, since the purpose of org-mode's clustering was to recover the normal clustering behaviour and the standard self-insert-command clustering now works in org-mode with Emacs-24. The question of how to customize the clustering granularity seems to me to be a separate question (which can presumably be solved by making the hard-coded 20 into a variable). Toby -- Dr T. S. Cubitt Mathematics and Quantum Information group Department of Mathematics Complutense University Madrid, Spain email: ts...@cantab.net web: www.dr-qubit.org
