🚀 go-pugleaf

I have been paying attention, Sean, that's the point. You've gone from simply querying why people want multiple undo to throwing comments around like "mindlessly moving bits of text all over your document" and "my use of tags instead of multiple undo in designing a document reflects an understanding of the usefulness and power of structured documentation and structured documentation tools" (with the implication that those who want multiple undo don't understand "structured documentation tools"). And it's that increasing stridency that amuses me, so your query about whether I am amused by myself makes no sense in this context. 

When you say you agree that "a product with less stability would benefit more from multiple undo" and that "people used to unstable software and twiddling with fonts might perceive multiple undo as a must-have feature", who are you agreeing with? I certainly don't claim that those who want and use multiple undo do so only because they use unstable products or are merely "twiddling with fonts". Again, you denigrate people who want multiple undo. 

For myself, I have no problem using the paragraph and character designers - I construct detailed style sheets and make full use of the formats and master pages and reference pages. So where do you get off asserting that I "fail to see the strength in the designers and structuring your documents globally, rather than one word at a time"? Or that I have a "vision" of how multiple undo should be implemented? I never said I wanted it, let alone that I had an idea of how it should work. I merely said it can be helpful. Who's not paying attention? 

For the record, in the documents I work on, there are always one-off formatting situations where I'm arranging text or graphics using a style that will be used nowhere else in the document. In these situations, multiple undo would be useful, because this kind of typographic arrangement is more of an intuitive thing than a style-sheet thing, and being able to try something and then step back if I decide I don't like where that idea was taking me is great. It's less of a break to the creative flow. (But, like I said, FM is not good at this type of design anyway.) And it's useful in composing and editing text, where you can try ideas and go back and forth between constructions for comparison. Try doing that with tags. 

And, as for "if you have to go back multiple steps, you have to undo everything, good and bad, or nothing", I don't see the problem with that - that's the whole point of multiple undo. And I don't see how that can be called "chaotic". If backtracking your steps is "chaotic", then surely your steps forward must also be "chaotic"? 

Finally, I don't know why you need to keep telling us that the reason you want multiple undo is as a "marketing bone" (three times in this thread alone). I don't understand this position at all. How do you think it can possibly be useful as a marketing tool if you don't think it's needed? (Hey, buy FM - it has unnecessary features!) And if you do accept that it's useful for others, why have you posted so many messages about how you don't want it ("I'm loathe to see FrameMaker bulk up with the added overhead of multiple undo") and it's not needed? One post would have been plenty. More than that and you risk sounding "holier than thou". 

Dominic