On 29 Nov 2015 8:41 pm, "Drew Adams" wrote: > Perhaps, to be more precise, the difference is search that > does or does not accept general regexp patterns as _input_. > Those that do have "regexp" (or "-re-"?) in their name; > those that do not do not have it. The former do not > support char folding; the latter do. Is that correct (and > complete)? > > I guess I was mistaken in thinking that non-incremental > search commands, such as `nonincremental-search-forward', > do not support char folding (regardless of whether they > include "-re" in their name). Which ones support it, and > under what circumstances? All of the nonincremental-*search-* support folding (except those that use regexp). In general, you're correct that most non-regexp searches do char folding. But that's most, not all. A plain `search-forward' doesn't do folding (by choice). So we can't just document that "all non regexp searches do folding".