From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Dani Moncayo Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.bugs Subject: bug#8861: 24.0.50; Isearch: Repeating the last search Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2011 15:52:30 +0200 Message-ID: References: <19F65DC210FE45AC84732F8E76A374AA@us.oracle.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1308059632 10035 80.91.229.12 (14 Jun 2011 13:53:52 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2011 13:53:52 +0000 (UTC) Cc: 8861@debbugs.gnu.org To: Drew Adams Original-X-From: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Tue Jun 14 15:53:45 2011 Return-path: Envelope-to: geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([140.186.70.17]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1QWU3t-0003v4-OM for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Tue, 14 Jun 2011 15:53:45 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:58872 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1QWU3s-0006ZE-Md for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Tue, 14 Jun 2011 09:53:45 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.92]:43516) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1QWU3F-0006UL-9G for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Tue, 14 Jun 2011 09:53:06 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1QWU3D-0002Od-Fy for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Tue, 14 Jun 2011 09:53:05 -0400 Original-Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.43]:43140) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1QWU3D-0002OZ-7R for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Tue, 14 Jun 2011 09:53:03 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1QWU3C-0003su-6c; Tue, 14 Jun 2011 09:53:02 -0400 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Resent-From: Dani Moncayo Original-Sender: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Resent-To: owner@debbugs.gnu.org Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2011 13:53:02 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 8861 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs X-GNU-PR-Keywords: Original-Received: via spool by 8861-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B8861.130805955814900 (code B ref 8861); Tue, 14 Jun 2011 13:53:02 +0000 Original-Received: (at 8861) by debbugs.gnu.org; 14 Jun 2011 13:52:38 +0000 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1QWU2n-0003sG-Kx for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 14 Jun 2011 09:52:38 -0400 Original-Received: from mail-gx0-f172.google.com ([209.85.161.172]) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1QWU2m-0003rz-5R for 8861@debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 14 Jun 2011 09:52:36 -0400 Original-Received: by gxk19 with SMTP id 19so3848107gxk.3 for <8861@debbugs.gnu.org>; Tue, 14 Jun 2011 06:52:30 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=8GJ1nPTjqLs5acQb/UVBLJdReqfptDGX+ZfUGroat9I=; b=sQVnGrIAQYHlj5Btw1V3lKe0R//ZdvAEADYiSqkgv0FyNrQOF0smJAci4OdsL9cZQn QyUgMu+q2YC/7YuHoxeaZMKAztwXGMRb9riUrkYpL0XpqOFJp4bepqkauoN/Dcbbwv+k tYGKIbFBqV7nWb+ciW+t/B6LoZOokrhK5Wni4= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=HgS4TmQN+wQyiy42agiAFqyTUsyOrkqVK7B8PIdyRaRjRr6eMgeqKxignP7EK8TxP+ nwYrme8tw24gzIzlDd6JrUqYiZXU3Jw2/ddCbyUaUMbt5YUFvchj4+EBkWbZoI9MT4Gz eZsv+8Soxvm15Q61jOoT34nRXPkuzqFPM+qgs= Original-Received: by 10.90.41.28 with SMTP id o28mr985532ago.114.1308059550543; Tue, 14 Jun 2011 06:52:30 -0700 (PDT) Original-Received: by 10.90.25.2 with HTTP; Tue, 14 Jun 2011 06:52:30 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <19F65DC210FE45AC84732F8E76A374AA@us.oracle.com> X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.11 Precedence: list Resent-Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2011 09:53:02 -0400 X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 3) X-Received-From: 140.186.70.43 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.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.bugs:47126 Archived-At: Hi Drew, > The highlighting could perhaps be turned off completely in this case, sin= ce in > does not (cannot) correctly indicate only the part of the search string t= hat is > incorrect. =A0(But turning it off completely gives the opposite message t= hat there > is no search failure.) This doesn't make much sense to me. I expect that, whenever Isearch is active, the search string will always be highlighted to reflect the matched and unmatched parts at every moment, regardless of how that string has been introduced (char by char, by copy&paste, by "C-s C-s", ...) > The highlighting as it appears is at least consistent with the rest of Is= earch > behavior in this context. =A0The search string was not sought incremental= ly; that > is, no incremental search built it up. =A0So there is no notion of the in= crement > of it that failed. =A0If you hit `DEL' (Backspace) at that point, it is n= ot just > the final `e' that is removed, but all of the search string. I understand you, but I really disagree. As I've said before, I'd expect a consistent behavior with independence of the way the search string has been built. I don't see the need to have that double treatment. IMHO, it is both more consistent and useful to have a single behavior. In the example showed in the OP, if the search string (and the cursor position) was updated as I suggested, I would have had a more complete/precise information, since part of my search string did actually have matches after the point, and that is what I wanted to know. In short: I find my proposed behavior both (a) Simpler (more consistent) and (b) More informative (useful) that the current one. (Just my opinion) --=20 Dani Moncayo