🚀 go-pugleaf

I can restate the proof in even less technical terms as follows. Multiple undo consists in nothing more than the iteration of single undo. Consequently, if single undo is useful, of logical necessity each possible iteration of single undo is useful, thereby implying that multiple undo is useful.   

By your logic, 999,999,999,999 levels of undo are 999,999,999,999 times more useful than one level of undo. That's not true. 

If single undo is useful, and multiple undo is multiple iterations of single undo, then you can only deduce that multiple undo us useful for its one-time single-undo functionality. Your conclusion does not automatically hold true for the second and subsequent undos. Indeed, I would argue that the usefulness of multiple undo drops off precipitously after the first-level. 

Furthermore, multiple undo is actually detrimental because it leads people like you away from more efficient ways of doing business. 

Your arguments about multiple undo are flawed because you fail to understand the ways FrameMaker works. For most people, FrameMaker is not this maze you wander through blindly and without thinking. And, multiple undo is a haphazard way of getting back to where you were . . . you undo the good and the bad. You lose track of things that have happened, tens, hundreds, and thousands of levels back in the undo. Quite quickly, reverting to a previously-saved version of your document becomes more efficient. Yet, while I would say reverting to saved is more efficient than using, say, even 25 levels of multiple undo, I would agree that reverting to a saved document is not more efficient than one level of undo. 

Trial and error design using multiple undo is wasteful when you have tags and designers at your finger tips, and it is moreover wrong to decide to commit to DTP software based only on the presence or absence of multiple undo. 

Your arguments and proofs are flawed. I don't expect you to understand why, but if it makes you feel any better I appreciate the amount of effort you put into explaining yourself. 

We will never agree on this issue, but I will say this: rather than you tossing up flawed logic and me replying with what you perceive as flawed logic, let's agree to disagree and stop flogging the horse. 

If you decide FrameMaker is not for you based solely on the absense of multiple undo, sobeit. 

If I have higher priorities than multiple undo for FrameMaker improvements, including concern for software performance and resource use, sobeit. 

Cheers, 

Sean