From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Juri Linkov Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.bugs Subject: bug#49534: 26.3; Isearch should support using filter predicates with empty search hits Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2022 20:20:30 +0200 Organization: LINKOV.NET Message-ID: <86ee432hgf.fsf@mail.linkov.net> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="18454"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/29.0.50 (x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) Cc: "49534@debbugs.gnu.org" <49534@debbugs.gnu.org> To: Drew Adams Original-X-From: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Wed Feb 16 19:46:49 2022 Return-path: Envelope-to: geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane-mx.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([209.51.188.17]) by ciao.gmane.io with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1nKPKD-0004fp-FN for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane-mx.org; Wed, 16 Feb 2022 19:46:49 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:35018 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1nKPKB-00048D-Nh for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane-mx.org; Wed, 16 Feb 2022 13:46:48 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:42624) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1nKPIW-00044e-4v for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Wed, 16 Feb 2022 13:45:05 -0500 Original-Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.43]:55545) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1nKPIV-0003nV-9P for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Wed, 16 Feb 2022 13:45:03 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1nKPIV-00064k-8w for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Wed, 16 Feb 2022 13:45:03 -0500 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Resent-From: Juri Linkov Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2022 18:45:03 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 49534 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs X-GNU-PR-Keywords: fixed Original-Received: via spool by 49534-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B49534.164503708323244 (code B ref 49534); Wed, 16 Feb 2022 18:45:03 +0000 Original-Received: (at 49534) by debbugs.gnu.org; 16 Feb 2022 18:44:43 +0000 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:49428 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1nKPIB-00062q-CO for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 16 Feb 2022 13:44:43 -0500 Original-Received: from relay5-d.mail.gandi.net ([217.70.183.197]:34065) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1nKPI9-00062b-T7 for 49534@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 16 Feb 2022 13:44:42 -0500 Original-Received: (Authenticated sender: juri@linkov.net) by mail.gandi.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 2F2581C0007; Wed, 16 Feb 2022 18:44:33 +0000 (UTC) In-Reply-To: (Drew Adams's message of "Wed, 16 Feb 2022 04:20:40 +0000") X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list X-BeenThere: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org List-Id: "Bug reports for GNU Emacs, the Swiss army knife of text editors" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: "bug-gnu-emacs" Xref: news.gmane.io gmane.emacs.bugs:227045 Archived-At: >> > > Your code (in master) removes that boundary test >> > > altogether (no `bobp' or `eobp' test). Why is >> > > that the right thing? Is it because the match >> > > should be allowed to match up to `bobp' or `eobp'? >> > > If so, why was that test in isearch.el in the >> > > first place? >> > >> > If you think that you found a problem, please provide >> > a test that exposes it. >> >> I'm asking why you removed that boundary test. >> And peripherally, why it was there to begin with? > > ping. I'd really like to know. > >> > > Actually, you do still test for reaching the >> > > boundary, but only for an empty match and after >> > > filter failure. Why is that? >> > >> > Please provide a test case if you think there is a problem. >> >> I'm asking why you test for reaching the boundary, >> and only for an empty match and after a filter >> failure. > > ping. I'd really like to know. > >> > > And why do you not need to back up a char after >> > > the loop, if the match was empty the last time >> > > around and the next time it fails? It'll have >> > > advanced a char; should it stay there instead >> > > of backing up? (Dunno, but I supposed not.) >> > >> > Please provide more tests that confirm your doubts. >> >> I'm asking why you don't need to back up a char >> after having advanced a char in that case. > > ping. I'd really like to know. All these changes fixed the test case that you presented in the bug report.