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: master b02c9bc: Improve documentation of new Xref options Date: Tue, 07 Sep 2021 18:45:13 +0300 Message-ID: <83a6kopeye.fsf@gnu.org> References: <20210907130400.31609.90502@vcs0.savannah.gnu.org> <20210907130401.D074320A10@vcs0.savannah.gnu.org> Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="40592"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Dmitry Gutov Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Tue Sep 07 17:47:08 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 1mNdJS-000AFR-JC for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Tue, 07 Sep 2021 17:47:06 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:43912 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1mNdJR-00005I-Dn for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Tue, 07 Sep 2021 11:47:05 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:50468) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1mNdHs-00063W-LH for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 07 Sep 2021 11:45:29 -0400 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]:54280) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1mNdHr-0006eT-ST; Tue, 07 Sep 2021 11:45:27 -0400 Original-Received: from 84.94.185.95.cable.012.net.il ([84.94.185.95]:4109 helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1mNdHW-0000X2-FT; Tue, 07 Sep 2021 11:45:10 -0400 In-Reply-To: (message from Dmitry Gutov on Tue, 7 Sep 2021 18:21:24 +0300) 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:274255 Archived-At: > From: Dmitry Gutov > Date: Tue, 7 Sep 2021 18:21:24 +0300 > > > @findex project-search > > - @kbd{M-x project-search} is an interactive variant of > > + @kbd{M-x project-search} is an incremental variant of > > Is it really incremental? Maybe call it "iterative". Is "sequential" better? "Iterative" sounds too "mathematical". > Compared to isearch (which is "incremental search"), we are not allowed > to change the search string on-the-fly, for example. Well, I meant incremental in the sense that we do it one match at a time. > > -@c Sadly, the new-and-improved Xref feature doesn't provide anything > > -@c close to the described below features of the now-obsoleted > > -@c tags-apropos. I'm leaving this here to encourage enhancements to > > -@c xref.el. > > +@c Sadly, the new-and-improved Xref feature doesn't provide some > > +@c of the features of the now-obsoleted tags-apropos. I'm leaving > > +@c this here to encourage enhancements to xref.el. > > Is that about the display of tag file names in the apropos output buffer? No, it's about the features listed after the shown hunk. I just made its language less extreme, because xref-find-apropos does exist. > > The new user option 'xref-auto-jump-to-first-definition' controls the > > -behavior of 'xref-find-definitions' and related commands: if it's t or > > -'show', the first match is automatically displayed; if it's 'move', > > -point in the "*xref*" buffer is automatically moved to the first match > > -without displaying it. > > -The new user option 'xref-auto-jump-to-first-xref' changes the behavior of > > -all Xref commands in the same way as 'xref-auto-jump-to-first-definition' > > -affects the "find-definitions" commands. > > +behavior of 'xref-find-definitions' and related commands, like > > Maybe "similar" rather than related? The point is that those commands > use the same UI (to show, sometimes, very different information), rather > than that are united by subject matter. I went with "variants", okay?