1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
311
312
313
314
315
316
317
318
319
320
321
322
323
324
325
326
327
328
329
330
331
332
333
334
335
336
337
338
339
340
341
342
343
344
345
346
347
348
349
350
|
;;; repeat.el --- convenient way to repeat the previous command
;; Copyright (C) 1998 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
;; Author: Will Mengarini <seldon@eskimo.com>
;; Created: Mo 02 Mar 98
;; Version: 0.51, We 13 May 98
;; Keywords: convenience, vi, repeat
;; This file is part of GNU Emacs.
;; GNU Emacs is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify
;; it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by
;; the Free Software Foundation; either version 2, or (at your option)
;; any later version.
;; GNU Emacs is distributed in the hope that it will be useful,
;; but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of
;; MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the
;; GNU General Public License for more details.
;; You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License
;; along with GNU Emacs; see the file COPYING. If not, write to the
;; Free Software Foundation, Inc., 51 Franklin Street, Fifth Floor,
;; Boston, MA 02110-1301, USA.
;;; Commentary:
;; Sometimes the fastest way to get something done is just to lean on a key;
;; moving forward through a series of words by leaning on M-f is an example.
;; But 'forward-page is orthodoxily bound to C-x ], so moving forward through
;; several pages requires
;; Loop until desired page is reached:
;; Hold down control key with left pinkie.
;; Tap <x>.
;; Lift left pinkie off control key.
;; Tap <]>.
;; This is a pain in the ass.
;; This package defines a command that repeats the preceding command,
;; whatever that was, including its arguments, whatever they were.
;; This command is connected to the key C-x z.
;; To repeat the previous command once, type C-x z.
;; To repeat it a second time immediately after, type just z.
;; By typing z again and again, you can repeat the command over and over.
;; This works correctly inside a keyboard macro as far as recording and
;; playback go, but `edit-kbd-macro' gets it wrong. That shouldn't really
;; matter; if you need to edit something like
;; C-x ] ;; forward-page
;; C-x z ;; repeat
;; zz ;; self-insert-command * 2
;; C-x ;; Control-X-prefix
;; you can just kill the bogus final 2 lines, then duplicate the repeat line
;; as many times as it's really needed. Also, `edit-kbd-macro' works
;; correctly if `repeat' is invoked through a rebinding to a single keystroke
;; and the global variable repeat-on-final-keystroke is set to a value
;; that doesn't include that keystroke. For example, the lines
;; (global-set-key "\C-z" 'repeat)
;; (setq repeat-on-final-keystroke "z")
;; in your .emacs would allow `edit-kbd-macro' to work correctly when C-z was
;; used in a keyboard macro to invoke `repeat', but would still allow C-x z
;; to be used for `repeat' elsewhere. The real reason for documenting this
;; isn't that anybody would need it for the `edit-kbd-macro' problem, but
;; that there might be other unexpected ramifications of re-executing on
;; repetitions of the final keystroke, and this shows how to do workarounds.
;; If the preceding command had a prefix argument, that argument is applied
;; to the repeat command, unless the repeat command is given a new prefix
;; argument, in which case it applies that new prefix argument to the
;; preceding command. This means a key sequence like C-u - C-x C-t can be
;; repeated. (It shoves the preceding line upward in the buffer.)
;; Here are some other key sequences with which repeat might be useful:
;; C-u - C-t [shove preceding character backward in line]
;; C-u - M-t [shove preceding word backward in sentence]
;; C-x ^ enlarge-window [one line] (assuming frame has > 1 window)
;; C-u - C-x ^ [shrink window one line]
;; C-x ` next-error
;; C-u - C-x ` [previous error]
;; C-x DEL backward-kill-sentence
;; C-x e call-last-kbd-macro
;; C-x r i insert-register
;; C-x r t string-rectangle
;; C-x TAB indent-rigidly [one character]
;; C-u - C-x TAB [outdent rigidly one character]
;; C-x { shrink-window-horizontally
;; C-x } enlarge-window-horizontally
;; This command was first called `vi-dot', because
;; it was inspired by the `.' command in the vi editor,
;; but it was renamed to make its name more meaningful.
;;; Code:
;;;;; ************************* USER OPTIONS ************************** ;;;;;
(defcustom repeat-too-dangerous '(kill-this-buffer)
"Commands too dangerous to repeat with \\[repeat]."
:group 'convenience
:type '(repeat function))
;; If the last command was self-insert-command, the char to be inserted was
;; obtained by that command from last-command-char, which has now been
;; clobbered by the command sequence that invoked `repeat'. We could get it
;; from (recent-keys) & set last-command-char to that, "unclobbering" it, but
;; this has the disadvantage that if the user types a sequence of different
;; chars then invokes repeat, only the final char will be inserted. In vi,
;; the dot command can reinsert the entire most-recently-inserted sequence.
(defvar repeat-message-function nil
"If non-nil, function used by `repeat' command to say what it's doing.
Message is something like \"Repeating command glorp\".
To disable such messages, set this variable to `ignore'. To customize
display, assign a function that takes one string as an arg and displays
it however you want.")
(defcustom repeat-on-final-keystroke t
"Allow `repeat' to re-execute for repeating lastchar of a key sequence.
If this variable is t, `repeat' determines what key sequence
it was invoked by, extracts the final character of that sequence, and
re-executes as many times as that final character is hit; so for example
if `repeat' is bound to C-x z, typing C-x z z z repeats the previous command
3 times. If this variable is a sequence of characters, then re-execution
only occurs if the final character by which `repeat' was invoked is a
member of that sequence. If this variable is nil, no re-execution occurs."
:group 'convenience
:type 'boolean)
;;;;; ****************** HACKS TO THE REST OF EMACS ******************* ;;;;;
;; The basic strategy is to use last-command, a variable built in to Emacs.
;; There are 2 issues that complicate this strategy. The first is that
;; last-command is given a bogus value when any kill command is executed;
;; this is done to make it easy for `yank-pop' to know that it's being invoked
;; after a kill command. The second is that the meaning of the command is
;; often altered by the prefix arg, but although Emacs (19.34) has a
;; builtin prefix-arg specifying the arg for the next command, as well as a
;; builtin current-prefix-arg, it has no builtin last-prefix-arg.
;; There's a builtin (this-command-keys), the return value of which could be
;; executed with (command-execute), but there's no (last-command-keys).
;; Using (last-command-keys) if it existed wouldn't be optimal, however,
;; since it would complicate checking membership in repeat-too-dangerous.
;; It would of course be trivial to implement last-prefix-arg &
;; true-last-command by putting something in post-command-hook, but that
;; entails a performance hit; the approach taken below avoids that.
;; Coping with strings of self-insert commands gets hairy when they interact
;; with auto-filling. Most problems are eliminated by remembering what we're
;; self-inserting, so we only need to get it from the undo information once.
(defvar repeat-last-self-insert nil
"If last repeated command was `self-insert-command', it inserted this.")
;; That'll require another keystroke count so we know we're in a string of
;; repetitions of self-insert commands:
(defvar repeat-num-input-keys-at-self-insert -1
"# key sequences read in Emacs session when `self-insert-command' repeated.")
;;;;; *************** ANALOGOUS HACKS TO `repeat' ITSELF **************** ;;;;;
;; That mechanism of checking num-input-keys to figure out what's really
;; going on can be useful to other commands that need to fine-tune their
;; interaction with repeat. Instead of requiring them to advise repeat, we
;; can just defvar the value they need here, & setq it in the repeat command:
(defvar repeat-num-input-keys-at-repeat -1
"# key sequences read in Emacs session when `repeat' last invoked.")
;; Also, we can assign a name to the test for which that variable is
;; intended, which thereby documents here how to use it, & makes code that
;; uses it self-documenting:
(defsubst repeat-is-really-this-command ()
"Return t if this command is happening because user invoked `repeat'.
Usually, when a command is executing, the Emacs builtin variable
`this-command' identifies the command the user invoked. Some commands modify
that variable on the theory they're doing more good than harm; `repeat' does
that, and usually does do more good than harm. However, like all do-gooders,
sometimes `repeat' gets surprising results from its altruism. The value of
this function is always whether the value of `this-command' would've been
'repeat if `repeat' hadn't modified it."
(= repeat-num-input-keys-at-repeat num-input-keys))
;; An example of the use of (repeat-is-really-this-command) may still be
;; available in <http://www.eskimo.com/~seldon/dotemacs.el>; search for
;; "defun wm-switch-buffer".
;;;;; ******************* THE REPEAT COMMAND ITSELF ******************* ;;;;;
(defvar repeat-previous-repeated-command nil
"The previous repeated command.")
;;;###autoload
(defun repeat (repeat-arg)
"Repeat most recently executed command.
With prefix arg, apply new prefix arg to that command; otherwise, use
the prefix arg that was used before (if any).
This command is like the `.' command in the vi editor.
If this command is invoked by a multi-character key sequence, it can then
be repeated by repeating the final character of that sequence. This behavior
can be modified by the global variable `repeat-on-final-keystroke'."
;; The most recently executed command could be anything, so surprises could
;; result if it were re-executed in a context where new dynamically
;; localized variables were shadowing global variables in a `let' clause in
;; here. (Remember that GNU Emacs 19 is dynamically localized.)
;; To avoid that, I tried the `lexical-let' of the Common Lisp extensions,
;; but that entails a very noticeable performance hit, so instead I use the
;; "repeat-" prefix, reserved by this package, for *local* variables that
;; might be visible to re-executed commands, including this function's arg.
(interactive "P")
(when (eq real-last-command 'repeat)
(setq real-last-command repeat-previous-repeated-command))
(when (null real-last-command)
(error "There is nothing to repeat"))
(when (eq real-last-command 'mode-exit)
(error "real-last-command is mode-exit & can't be repeated"))
(when (memq real-last-command repeat-too-dangerous)
(error "Command %S too dangerous to repeat automatically" real-last-command))
(setq this-command real-last-command
repeat-num-input-keys-at-repeat num-input-keys)
(setq repeat-previous-repeated-command this-command)
(when (null repeat-arg)
(setq repeat-arg last-prefix-arg))
;; Now determine whether to loop on repeated taps of the final character
;; of the key sequence that invoked repeat. The Emacs global
;; last-command-char contains the final character now, but may not still
;; contain it after the previous command is repeated, so the character
;; needs to be saved.
(let ((repeat-repeat-char
(if (eq repeat-on-final-keystroke t)
;; allow any final input event that was a character
(when (eq last-command-char
last-command-event)
last-command-char)
;; allow only specified final keystrokes
(car (memq last-command-char
(listify-key-sequence
repeat-on-final-keystroke))))))
(if (memq real-last-command '(exit-minibuffer
minibuffer-complete-and-exit
self-insert-and-exit))
(let ((repeat-command (car command-history)))
(repeat-message "Repeating %S" repeat-command)
(eval repeat-command))
(if (null repeat-arg)
(repeat-message "Repeating command %S" real-last-command)
(setq current-prefix-arg repeat-arg)
(repeat-message "Repeating command %S %S" repeat-arg real-last-command))
(if (eq real-last-command 'self-insert-command)
(let ((insertion
(if (<= (- num-input-keys
repeat-num-input-keys-at-self-insert)
1)
repeat-last-self-insert
(let ((range (nth 1 buffer-undo-list)))
(condition-case nil
(setq repeat-last-self-insert
(buffer-substring (car range)
(cdr range)))
(error (error "%s %s %s" ;Danger, Will Robinson!
"repeat can't intuit what you"
"inserted before auto-fill"
"clobbered it, sorry")))))))
(setq repeat-num-input-keys-at-self-insert num-input-keys)
;; If the self-insert had a repeat count, INSERTION
;; includes that many copies of the same character.
;; So use just the first character
;; and repeat it the right number of times.
(setq insertion (substring insertion -1))
(let ((count (prefix-numeric-value repeat-arg))
(i 0))
(while (< i count)
(repeat-self-insert insertion)
(setq i (1+ i)))))
(let ((indirect (indirect-function real-last-command)))
(if (or (stringp indirect)
(vectorp indirect))
;; Bind real-last-command so that executing the macro
;; does not alter it.
(let ((real-last-command real-last-command))
(execute-kbd-macro real-last-command))
(run-hooks 'pre-command-hook)
(call-interactively real-last-command)
(run-hooks 'post-command-hook)))))
(when repeat-repeat-char
;; A simple recursion here gets into trouble with max-lisp-eval-depth
;; on long sequences of repetitions of a command like `forward-word'
;; (only 32 repetitions are possible given the default value of 200 for
;; max-lisp-eval-depth), but if I now locally disable the repeat char I
;; can iterate indefinitely here around a single level of recursion.
(let (repeat-on-final-keystroke)
(while (eq (read-event) repeat-repeat-char)
;; Make each repetition undo separately.
(undo-boundary)
(repeat repeat-arg))
(setq unread-command-events (list last-input-event))))))
(defun repeat-self-insert (string)
(let ((i 0))
(while (< i (length string))
(let ((last-command-char (aref string i)))
(self-insert-command 1))
(setq i (1+ i)))))
(defun repeat-message (format &rest args)
"Like `message' but displays with `repeat-message-function' if non-nil."
(let ((message (apply 'format format args)))
(if repeat-message-function
(funcall repeat-message-function message)
(message "%s" message))))
;; OK, there's one situation left where that doesn't work correctly: when the
;; most recent self-insertion provoked an auto-fill. The problem is that
;; unravelling the undo information after an auto-fill is too hard, since all
;; kinds of stuff can get in there as a result of comment prefixes etc. It'd
;; be possible to advise do-auto-fill to record the most recent
;; self-insertion before it does its thing, but that's a performance hit on
;; auto-fill, which already has performance problems; so it's better to just
;; leave it like this. If text didn't provoke an auto-fill when the user
;; typed it, this'll correctly repeat its self-insertion, even if the
;; repetition does cause auto-fill.
;; If you wanted perfection, probably it'd be necessary to hack do-auto-fill
;; into 2 functions, maybe-do-auto-fill & really-do-auto-fill, because only
;; really-do-auto-fill should be advised. As things are, either the undo
;; information would need to be scanned on every do-auto-fill invocation, or
;; the code at the top of do-auto-fill deciding whether filling is necessary
;; would need to be duplicated in the advice, wasting execution time when
;; filling does turn out to be necessary.
;; I thought maybe this story had a moral, something about functional
;; decomposition; but now I'm not even sure of that, since a function
;; call per se is a performance hit, & even the code that would
;; correspond to really-do-auto-fill has performance problems that
;; can make it necessary to stop typing while Emacs catches up.
;; Maybe the real moral is that perfection is a chimera.
;; Ah, hell, it's all going to fall into a black hole someday anyway.
;;;;; ************************* EMACS CONTROL ************************* ;;;;;
(provide 'repeat)
;;; arch-tag: cd569600-a1ad-4fa7-9062-bb91dfeaf1db
;;; repeat.el ends here
|