From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Eli Zaretskii Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Simple isearch concerns Date: Fri, 09 Apr 2021 15:45:00 +0300 Message-ID: <831rbj8w4z.fsf@gnu.org> References: <20210403001539.x4rb55dvh46rmhb3.ref@Ergus> <20210403001539.x4rb55dvh46rmhb3@Ergus> <878s5wmsjp.fsf@mail.linkov.net> <87mtubz4ls.fsf@mail.linkov.net> <8735w22s9b.fsf@mail.linkov.net> <3ec7e2e58a3733a48ae9@heytings.org> <878s5tc0rn.fsf@mail.linkov.net> <3ec7e2e58a49d4f0ec99@heytings.org> <878s5t9p1i.fsf@mail.linkov.net> <9ff81b52fad2911cc740@heytings.org> <87im4w1tgw.fsf@mail.linkov.net> <9ff81b52fa878cb35a86@heytings.org> <87pmz4zgn5.fsf@mail.linkov.net> <9ff81b52fa72c1233122@heytings.org> <83czv47z99.fsf@gnu.org> <940751cee5bc247768d3@heytings.org> <837dlb91mk.fsf@gnu.org> <940751cee5d04ecbbca3@heytings.org> Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="12046"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" Cc: spacibba@aol.com, emacs-devel@gnu.org, juri@linkov.net To: Gregory Heytings Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Fri Apr 09 14:47:01 2021 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@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 1lUqXN-0002vP-3w for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Fri, 09 Apr 2021 14:47:01 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:34666 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lUqXM-0000eZ-5Y for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Fri, 09 Apr 2021 08:47:00 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:53426) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lUqVn-00085D-HK for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 09 Apr 2021 08:45:23 -0400 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]:50073) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lUqVj-0005CS-Pz; Fri, 09 Apr 2021 08:45:21 -0400 Original-Received: from 84.94.185.95.cable.012.net.il ([84.94.185.95]:4633 helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1lUqVh-0000sk-5Q; Fri, 09 Apr 2021 08:45:17 -0400 In-Reply-To: <940751cee5d04ecbbca3@heytings.org> (message from Gregory Heytings on Fri, 09 Apr 2021 11:27:41 +0000) X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23 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-mx.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: "Emacs-devel" Xref: news.gmane.io gmane.emacs.devel:267713 Archived-At: > Date: Fri, 09 Apr 2021 11:27:41 +0000 > From: Gregory Heytings > cc: juri@linkov.net, spacibba@aol.com, emacs-devel@gnu.org > > > The "scroll" part is what I think needs to be amended: the commands you > > are affecting are not scroll commands, they are cursor motion commands. > > > > Okay, so what you mean by "scroll" in this context is "change the visible > portion of the buffer without moving the cursor". I think I understand > your point, even though that's not what scroll-up-command and > scroll-down-command do. Would "isearch-allow-motion" and the property > "isearch-motion" be okay? Yes, this is better. Although perhaps the property and the variable should have the same name. > It's not necessary (but AFAIU it's harmless) for the four commands that > are enabled by isearch-allow-motion, it is also not necessary for: > > (put 'next-line 'isearch-match-scroll '(next-line . forward)) > > which will correctly wrap at EOB, but it necessary for: > > (put 'previous-line 'isearch-match-scroll '(previous-line . backward)) > > For some reason, in this case if the error is not catched, Isearch does > not wrap at BOB, but instead enters in a strange state where you can move > the cursor around. This might be a bug that should be corrected instead > of circumventing it by catching the error. So I think we should first investigate why it happens with the last snippet. And if the conclusion is that condition-case is indeed needed, we should explain the need in a comment there. Thanks.