🚀 go-pugleaf

And the posts get yet more strident. Now those who want multiple undo for text editing are not merely "mindlessly moving bits of text" but writing "crap" and not thinking about what they write. Nice to see that you're discussing the issues rather than resorting to personal criticism. 

I see that you agree that you meant that those who want multiple undo for FrameMaker don't understand structured documentation tools. But what possible justification have got for saying that? Just because some people want a different feature set than you does not mean that they don't understand structured documentation tools. (By the way, the "for FrameMaker" was implied in my original post. I thought I didn't need to spell out that I was referring to FM in this discussion. I'll be more explicit in future.) As for "need", who is claiming they "need" it? The discussion has been about wanting it, not needing it. 

Re "Who do you think I should be agreeing with?" Come again? How should I know who you "should" be agreeing with? You wrote, in a post in reply to one of mine, that "I do 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". I asked who you were agreeing with, who it was that had made these statements, because it was not me. So how should I know who you should be agreeing with? I ask again, who were you agreeing with? 

Re "Are you drawing a conclusion that people who want multiple-undo are font twiddlers"?  Well, no. You were the one who wrote "I do agree that people used to ... twiddling with fonts might perceive multiple undo as a must-have feature". Do I further draw the conclusion that font twiddling is bad? No, the impression I got from your post was that you believed this. I'm glad to hear that you don't think "font twiddling" is bad. But if you don't, then you've added another reason to add multiple undo to FM - for the font twiddlers.  

And what exactly did I post that led you to conclude that I "fail to see the strength in the designers and structuring your documents globally, rather than one word at a time"? And how does my sense of humour have any bearing on that? (How do you know what my sense of humour is anyway? "Amuse" does not refer only to humour.) Please answer this. I really would like to know what I posted that you are basing your conclusions on. I might conclude from your posts that you are a narrow-minded apologist for the FM programmers who arrograntly dismisses all those who want a different feature set from you as not understanding their software. But that would be just as ridiculous and unwarranted as you concluding what you did from my posts. 

I still don't understand why you advocate adding multiple undo if the only reason for doing this is to silence those who seek it. If you really don't see it as being of value, then be consistent and do not advocate adding it. But as far as RAM and performance issues go, Adobe claims that InDesign has a new style of multiple undo that doesn't add significantly to memory requirements and doesn't detrimentally affect performance. So, if a similar system could be used for FM, these problems might not be an issue. 

Nice to see you think Adobe should work on GUI issues. But it seems inconsistent with your first post in the "sad update" thread when you asked David Diamond "What is wrong with the UI?" 

By the by, in that thread, when you asked Mr Diamond what image handling he wanted and he gave an extensive reply, you left it at that instead of trying to convince him he didn't need the features he cited. Why can't you extend the same courtesy to those who have a genuine desire for multiple undo and accept their word that it would be beneficial for them, without accusing them of not understanding FM or writing crap. Why do they have to justify their position to you? 

Finally, "truce" is an odd word to use. I thought this supposed to be a discussion, not a fight. 

Dominic