From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Alan Mackenzie Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Should ending successful Isearch with C-g restore the relativewindow position? Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2013 16:36:42 +0000 Message-ID: <20130115163642.GC3430@acm.acm> References: <7E5B63603B074626914E5DAEB90E738B@us.oracle.com> <83fw23qf57.fsf@gnu.org> <1712F3B8AF3D49DD9AC9F829FF560543@us.oracle.com> <20130115150950.GB3430@acm.acm> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1358268216 25530 80.91.229.3 (15 Jan 2013 16:43:36 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2013 16:43:36 +0000 (UTC) Cc: 'Eli Zaretskii' , emacs-devel@gnu.org, dmoncayo@gmail.com To: Drew Adams Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Tue Jan 15 17:43:51 2013 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Tv9c6-0003BY-Jm for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 15 Jan 2013 17:43:50 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:43894 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Tv9bq-0007hQ-A8 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 15 Jan 2013 11:43:34 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:59429) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Tv9bn-0007h8-OW for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 15 Jan 2013 11:43:32 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Tv9bm-0003sX-IO for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 15 Jan 2013 11:43:31 -0500 Original-Received: from colin.muc.de ([193.149.48.1]:27049 helo=mail.muc.de) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Tv9bm-0003s8-8X for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 15 Jan 2013 11:43:30 -0500 Original-Received: (qmail 67587 invoked by uid 3782); 15 Jan 2013 16:43:28 -0000 Original-Received: from acm.muc.de (pD951B697.dip.t-dialin.net [217.81.182.151]) by colin.muc.de (tmda-ofmipd) with ESMTP; Tue, 15 Jan 2013 17:43:26 +0100 Original-Received: (qmail 4846 invoked by uid 1000); 15 Jan 2013 16:36:42 -0000 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) X-Delivery-Agent: TMDA/1.1.12 (Macallan) X-Primary-Address: acm@muc.de X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: FreeBSD 8.x X-Received-From: 193.149.48.1 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:156389 Archived-At: Hello again, Drew. On Tue, Jan 15, 2013 at 08:22:08AM -0800, Drew Adams wrote: > > > > Recentering is the default, always was. > > > Just the _default_? Does that mean that there is a simple user > > > setting that changes the behavior from the default so that it > > > returns things as they were before searching? > > No, I don't think it does. You might be being a bit too pedantic > > here. > Dunno why you think that, but OK. So what was meant then by "the > default"? What's the alternative behavior, and how does a user get it? I think Eli meant nothing more than "what Emacs in general usually does, when no other special action is taken", but he can confirm that himself if he wants. The alternative is carefully to scroll the contents of the window to the desired position, something which is out of reach of normal users. > > I think it would be easy enough to record the window position in > > isearch for this. > Is that the alternative for users to "the default" behavior - recoding > Isearch? Not a rhetorical question. If I'm missing something I'd like > to know what the suggestion is. Recoding isearch is certainly an alternative, but it's not for the faint of heart. > > But... If C-g restores the window position, then sooner or later > > somebody's going to want C- to do the same. Seems perfectly > > reasonable. > Why? The doc makes clear that the intention of `C-g' (for successful > search) is to take you back where you were. Including window position > as part of where you were would be a natural and reasonable extension > for the `C-g' behavior. > I would not object if that were optional for users, if there is someone > who really thinks we should also keep the current behavior. > But what does any of this have to do with `C-SPC'? Sorry, you've lost > me. The question is about `C-g' in the case of search success. I suppose it's the way I use isearch. I frequently use C-g to go back to my starting position, but I also use C- to do this (completing the search in the process). So, to me, C-g and C- are semantically very close. Were I a mere user, I'd get somewhat irritated if C-g restored the original scroll-position, but C- didn't. -- Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).